Opinion ID: 2636616
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: SBT's position

Text: SBT essentially responds that the district court was correct in both defining SBT's obligation as avoiding any conflicts only after completion of construction and also in holding that SBT met this obligation. It argues that the evidence is undisputed that its cable did not conflict with the sewer line as constructed: [a]t the point of damage, the sewer line was buried at a depth of 6 feet, and Plaintiff's cable was buried at a depth of 3 to 4 feet. From this information SBT argues that [t]he sewer line simply needed to go below Plaintiff's cable. SBT also argues in the alternative. It contends that if the district court should have applied K.S.A. 17-1902(l) instead, SBT nevertheless met this statutory obligation as well. The evidence concerning whether Plaintiff's cable prevented the Defendant from `accomplishing construction' of the storm sewer, as this phrase is used in K.S.A. 17-1902(l) was conflicting, although the weight of the evidence showed that the Defendant could have installed the sewer without hitting Plaintiff's cable. As more fully discussed below, we agree with Beachner: The duty properly imposed upon SBT arises from K.S.A. 17-1902.