Trafford rejects contractor's allegation in property suit
Trafford officials say a contractor's allegation that borough representatives gave the firm permission to stage equipment for a sewage project on a First Street property without the property owner's consent are untrue.
Further, Trafford's solicitor contends that two state laws make the borough immune from any liability in a lawsuit involving A. Liberoni Inc. and property owner James J. Bruno.
Borough Solicitor Craig Alexander filed paperwork on April 15 requesting Westmoreland County Common Pleas Judge Gary Caruso to dismiss A. Liberoni's move to add Trafford as a defendant in the lawsuit.
Bruno originally sued the company in April 2013, but A. Liberoni countered by accusing unnamed Trafford officials of “representing” that it could use Bruno's property because he was delinquent on his taxes.
Trafford officials reject the assertion. In the borough's response to the suit, Alexander said A. Liberoni officials never asked any Trafford officials whether they had permission to use Bruno's property for the $400,000 project.
“Defendant (A. Liberoni) stored material on private property at its own choosing,” Alexander wrote.
Nonetheless, Trafford is immune from liability because of the Sovereign Immunity Act and the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, Alexander contends.
Bruno's attorney, P. William Bercik, declined to comment about Trafford's filing.
W. Robert Ament, the attorney for A. Liberoni, did not return a message about the case.
Chris Foreman is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-856-7400, ext. 8671, or email@example.com.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.