State Seeks to Dismiss Suit Over Safety of Building

The state has a “general duty” to provide an earthquake-safe workplace for its employees, but that does not mean it is obligated to make all buildings safe immediately or to move employees from buildings that remain unsafe, the California attorney general’s office said.

The contention came in an attorney general’s brief this week seeking dismissal of a lawsuit brought by a state employees union to close the Junipero Serra State Office Building at 107 S. Broadway, where 1,750 people work. The suit notes that structural engineers told the state last year that the building could fail in a magnitude 7 earthquake.

In December, state officials ordered the closure of a 905-car parking structure adjacent to the office building. But they said that while the building could collapse as well, the odds are small that such a severe quake would occur in the five remaining years the building is expected to be occupied.

In the brief submitted to Superior Court Judge Robert O’Brien on Wednesday, Deputy Atty. Gen. Henry G. Ullerich contended that funds are not available to fix all hazardous buildings at one time.

“The statutes may impose a general duty of (a) safe workplace, but the Legislature has not imposed a specific duty, with funding, to implement the duty in a specific way and specific time,” the brief said.

“The Legislature did not say that state buildings posing more risk than other buildings must be immediately closed,” it said. “The statutes are properly interpreted to allow a reasonable time to work toward the goal, but not to permit a court to mandate an immediate relocation of personnel.”

O’Brien said he would consider the matter and rule later whether to dismiss the lawsuit.

But Dennis F. Moss, attorney for the Association of California State Attorneys and Administrative Law Judges said the state’s argument contains “absurdities,” and the suit should go to trial.

“To allow them to circumvent their obligations to provide for the safety of their employees (while) not denying the basic contention that the building is unsafe would be wrong and would jeopardize the lives of many people,” Moss contended.

“The landlord’s own expert (engineer) has conceded that the building is unsafe, with a substantial risk to human life if there was the type of earthquake that is long overdue for the area,” he said.

Actually, the report from engineer Allan E. Porush of the Los Angeles firm of Dames & Moore did not call the prospective quake “long overdue.”

Porush merely commented that the “severe ground-shaking intensities” that would compromise the Serra building are believed to occur once in 475 years and did not give a date for when they last such shaking occurred.

Since in any five-year period the chance of such a quake occurring is deemed to be little more than 1%, Porush commented that he believed the risk of letting the state employees remain in the Serra building for five years “is limited and acceptable.”

* RELATED STORY: A21