Appeal No. 1999-0194
Application No. 08/436,626
of any indication in the record that appellant’s precast
diaphragms were treated any differently than conventional
bridge diaphragms subsequent to their installation. Instead,
it appears that appellant’s precast diaphragms were subject
only to the same routine inspections by third party bridge
inspection companies that conventional bridge diaphragms were
subject to (N13). While PennDoT may have had some early
concerns regarding appellant’s precast diaphragms, these
concerns were directed to serviceability and maintenance
rather than to the ability of said diaphragms to function as
intended.5 In any event, we are informed that at least as
early as September 28, 1993, some 7 months prior to the
critical date of May 8, 1994, PennDoT “did not indicate any
concerns about the performance of the precast diaphragms in
the field” (B17) and that appellant was so informed.
The PennDoT’s “Strike-Off Letter” of February 22, 1989
appears to be the result of regulation and control of bridge
construction becoming in general progressively greater, rather
5See the PennDoT letter of February 22, 1989 from Chief
Engineer William Moyer to PennDoT district engineers, attached
as an exhibit to the Bonstedt declaration.
18
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007