Reply to a comment

Reply to this comment

LadueVGilleo writes:

in response to MrBreeze:

Laduve, You are so misinformed. You say "does the dock meet electrical requirments so some guest do not get electrocuted?"

The homeowner replaced boards and refinished the dock. Who said anything about "Electrical" other than the Building Offical. Now think about this.What would happen if the homeowner did nothing to the dock? He left it alone, it was in compliance as far as anyone knows. He left it to rot did no repairs. Again no Code violations. You as a guest come over trip on bad wood get injured, sue homeowner.

Where is in your logic that preventing your potential injury is "shooting himself in the foot". Would you rather live next door to the dock falling in the water in disrepair or the "pristine" dock that the man was penelized for.

Wake up, you must work for the City.

McBreeze, let me explain my post to you. My post says that one would think an attorney would have taken the steps necessary to ensure he was within compliance with the city before beginning his project. It is simple enough to do. If he had, none of this would have happened. He didn't, and what we see here is an attorney shooting himself in the foot. This approach is similar to looking both ways before crossing a street, or looking before you leap; I think you get the concept.

I never said anything about the gentleman leaving his dock in disrepair; it should have been fixed, but the way he went about fixing it was wrong.

And I do not work for the city.

Share your thoughts

Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.

Comments can be shared on Facebook and Yahoo!. Add both options by connecting your profiles.

Features