Harrison County Utility Authority v. Crawford Directional Drilling, LLC, 1:15-cv-00264

Background

HCUA sued Cruz (J. Cruz Utility Contractors and Jeronimo Cruz) after Cruz, subcontracted to install fiber optic lines, struck an HCUA sewer line while directional boring under Debuys Road.
Cruz submitted a Mississippi 811 locate request describing work as beginning at the intersection of Debuys Rd and Switzer Rd and continuing south on the east side of Debuys Rd; Mississippi 811 relayed HCUA’s response: “clear, no conflict.”
Dispute centers on whether Cruz’s boring location was within the area described in the locate request (requiring HCUA to mark the sewer) or outside it (so HCUA’s “clear” response was accurate).
HCUA contends it marked the sewer in the southbound lane and that Cruz observed evidence (green paint and a pump station) indicating nearby sewer facilities; Cruz contends HCUA failed to properly mark the line per the locate request and that HCUA’s response was misleading.
Statutory framework (Miss. Code Ann. §§ 77-13-5, -9, -13) requires excavators to notify Mississippi 811, to inform themselves of underground utilities, and requires owners/operators to locate lines "in or near the area of the excavation."

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did HCUA comply with its duty to locate utilities "in or near the area of excavation" under § 77-13-9?	HCUA: it marked the sewer and believed excavation was east side only; response relied on Cruz’s description.	Cruz: HCUA failed to mark the line within the intersection area described by the locate request.	Jury question: genuine factual dispute exists; compliance is for jury to decide.
Was Cruz’s locate request ambiguous as to the intersection area such that HCUA’s “clear” response relieved it of liability?	HCUA: Cruz’s description suggested east-side work only, so “clear” was reasonable.	Cruz: request covered the intersection area where the break occurred; response was misleading.	Jury question: adequacy/coverage of the locate request is factual and for jury.
Did Cruz have a statutory duty to immediately contact Mississippi 811 upon seeing evidence of unmarked utilities?	HCUA: Cruz saw green paint and a pump station and thus should have contacted Mississippi 811.	Cruz: contends paint/pump were not sufficiently proximate or obvious to trigger the duty.	Jury question: whether observed paint/pump constituted "evidence of unmarked utilities" is a genuine issue of material fact.
Is Cruz entitled to summary judgment based on HCUA’s alleged failure to mark lines?	Cruz: yes — HCUA’s failure to mark per the locate request makes HCUA liable and Cruz is entitled to judgment.	HCUA: no — disputed facts (marking, scope of request, on-site observations) preclude summary judgment.	Denied: numerous material factual disputes preclude summary judgment; case for jury allocation of fault.

Key Cases Cited

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (movant’s burden on summary judgment and shifting burden to nonmovant)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (standard for genuine issue of material fact at summary judgment)