@Mouselemming Only the local jurisdiction can force that, usually by condemning the building, and then notice is required to be given. The demo crow literally had no permit, the law is clearly on the property owner’s side in this case.
We don’t need atsigns here, I’d still see your reply up by my little bell without it.
Yes, I was making a tiny joke, but also implying she’s not not as harmed as the headline implies, and might even be better off since the land may be more easily sold and/or a more useful building constructed. I did read the article and know the demolition wasn’t authorized.
A contractor right by me set the woods on fire after being told by the fire chef to stop burning on windy days. They burnt during 30 miles an hour winds and it took out tons of undergrowth, and nearly got a couple houses. Guy still walks free, no fines or anything
Because whoever runs the site probably isn’t the person that made the decision to raze the building. No liability should fall to them if they’re found to be doing their job properly.
This isn’t even remotely fucking true and you need to shut the fuck up.
Acting in good faith will protect you from a hell of a lot of shit, especially if you have the kind of job that doesn’t carry extra liability with it (like an engineer).
“Steve, we have an order to go knock down this building. Here’s the paperwork.”
“Okay boss, I will go knock down that building that you have the signed paperwork for, indicating I need to knock it down.”
“Just following orders” doesn’t mean shit in The Hague but it means everything in a civil or criminal trial if you have the paperwork to back you up.
Source: Am paralegal. Deal with similar shit regularly.
@stopthatgirl7 the company “is working to resolve the mishap”. WTF? how is the foreperson of the job site not in jail?
Maybe they’re deciding how much to bill her for demolishing her derelict abandoned building.
@Mouselemming Only the local jurisdiction can force that, usually by condemning the building, and then notice is required to be given. The demo crow literally had no permit, the law is clearly on the property owner’s side in this case.
We don’t need atsigns here, I’d still see your reply up by my little bell without it.
Yes, I was making a tiny joke, but also implying she’s not not as harmed as the headline implies, and might even be better off since the land may be more easily sold and/or a more useful building constructed. I did read the article and know the demolition wasn’t authorized.
Maybe if it can be shown their actions were malicious and not accidental. If not, more likely it’s purely a civil case.
A contractor right by me set the woods on fire after being told by the fire chef to stop burning on windy days. They burnt during 30 miles an hour winds and it took out tons of undergrowth, and nearly got a couple houses. Guy still walks free, no fines or anything
Because whoever runs the site probably isn’t the person that made the decision to raze the building. No liability should fall to them if they’re found to be doing their job properly.
@hiddengoat @stopthatgirl7 That’s not how the law works. Everybody involved in the crime gets charged.
This isn’t even remotely fucking true and you need to shut the fuck up.
Acting in good faith will protect you from a hell of a lot of shit, especially if you have the kind of job that doesn’t carry extra liability with it (like an engineer).
“Steve, we have an order to go knock down this building. Here’s the paperwork.”
“Okay boss, I will go knock down that building that you have the signed paperwork for, indicating I need to knock it down.”
“Just following orders” doesn’t mean shit in The Hague but it means everything in a civil or criminal trial if you have the paperwork to back you up.
Source: Am paralegal. Deal with similar shit regularly.