Opinion ID: 867601
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Underground Facilities Act

Text: ¶ 7 Several sections of the Underground Facilities Act, found at A.R.S. §§ 40-360.21 through 40-360.32, apply to the present case. First, an excavator must determine whether any underground lines exist in the area of excavation before beginning work. [4] Then, every owner of underground lines is directed to locate and mark its lines within two days of receiving notice of an excavation, and excavators cannot commence their work until marking is completed. [5] Even after the owner marks its lines, an excavator must still act with reasonable care. [6] An excavator who encounters an unmarked line must notify either the owner or the organization designated by the owner (in this case, the Blue Stake Center) of the unmarked line. [7] Neither an excavator nor an owner may assume an underground line is abandoned without verification. [8] ¶ 8 On this record, there is evidence that APS violated A.R.S. § 40-360.22(B) and (I) by breaching the requirement of identifying and marking its lines and by negligently failing to identify and warn of the location and dangerous nature of its high-voltage line encased in the galvanized pipe. Similarly, there is evidence that Gunnell violated A.R.S. §§ 40-360.23(B) and 40-360.22(I) when he uncovered an unmarked line and failed to appropriately verify its type (by notifying either the Blue Stake Center or APS), and thus determine whether it was actually abandoned, before he cut into it.
¶ 9 A person who damages a line as a result of failing to excavate in a careful and prudent manner is liable to the owner of the underground line for the repair costs. A.R.S. § 40-360.26. Section 40-360.28(B), the key to the case, supplements this as follows: If a violation of this article results in physical contact with an underground facility, the violator is liable to the owner of the facility for all damages to the facilities and costs, expenses and damages to third parties incurred by the owner of the facility as a result of the contact. (Emphasis added.) Thus, under subsection B, a negligent excavator must not only pay the owner's repair costs but must indemnify the line owner for all liability to third parties that the owner incurs as a result of the violator's contact with the line. However, when an owner fails to locate or mark its lines, the owner is liable for the resulting damages, costs and expenses to the injured party. [9] ¶ 10 While the requirements imposed by statute on owners and excavators are clear, the consequences for violations, as described in A.R.S. § 40-360.28(B) and (C), are not nearly so clear. Specifically, reading the statutes together and noting the placement of the word all in subsection (B), one could argue that a violating excavator is liable for both all damages to the line and all damages the violating owner must pay to third parties, even those caused by the owner's violation. On the other hand, the statute could be read to require the excavator to pay for all damage to the line and, with respect to damages to third parties, only the proportion attributable to the excavator's violation. ¶ 11 The problem is made more difficult in the present case because the injured person seeking damages is not an employee of the excavator but, as sole proprietor of his business, the excavator himself. Thus, the excavator in this case is the injured party, not a third party. Section 40-360.28(B), however, only requires indemnity for claims made by third parties, not for claims made by one violator against another. Gunnell argues that when, as in the present case, the excavator has himself been injured, article XVIII, §§ 5 and 6 of the Arizona Constitution require that principles of comparative negligence apply. APS argues that because Gunnell was a violator/excavator, he must indemnify APS against all claims, including his own, so that the comparative negligence statute does not apply.