Respondent asserts that the Complainant, who owned the property, failed to offer any documentary evidence such as photographs to substantiate his claims. at 6. Id. According to Duquesne, the testimony was explicitly Complainant’s contradicted by the testimony of its witness, Mr. Barrett, and by the photographs the Respondent entered into evidence. Specifically, the Respondent proffers that Mr. Barrett, whose duties pertain to the repair of sidewalks after installation of utility poles, visited the location on three separate occasions and testified that Duquesne did not cause the damage alleged by Mr. Williams, including the alleged three-quarter inch lift in the sidewalk. Duquesne further argues that its photo exhibits clearly show that the spalling did not occur in the cemented areas immediately next to the location where the Respondent performed its work. at 6-8. Id. In the second Exception, Duquesne asserts that the ALJ committed an error of law by relying on the adverse inference doctrine in concluding that the Respondent caused the spalling and the three-quarter inch lift in the sidewalk. at 8-9 (citing to Id. Docket No. C-2012-2315572 (Order entered July John Snow v. Equitable Gas Co., LLC, 16, 2013) (Snow)). The Respondent argues that the negative inference drawn by the ALJ is insufficient to carry Mr. burden of proof or create substantial evidence to Williams’ support the Initial Decision. Exc. at 9-10. In addition, Duquesne contends that the fundamental premise underlying the adverse inference doctrine is that access to evidence lies exclusively in the possession of one party. Here, the Respondent asserts, this premise does not apply because Duquesne is not equally suited to the Complainant to testify about the condition of the sidewalk prior to the installation of the new pole. According to Duquesne, Mr. Williams owns the property and has the burden the proof. However, the Respondent states, he failed to offer any corroborating evidence that the sidewalk was in better condition prior
Respondent asserts that the Complainant, who owned the property, failed to offer any documentary evidence such as photographs to substantiate his claims. Id. at 6. According to Duquesne, the Complainant’s testimony was explicitly contradicted by the testimony of its witness, Mr. Barrett, and by the photographs the Respondent entered into evidence. Specifically, the Respondent proffers that Mr. Barrett, whose duties pertain to the repair of sidewalks after installation of utility poles, visited the location on three separate occasions and testified that Duquesne did not cause the damage alleged by Mr. Williams, including the alleged three-quarter inch lift in the sidewalk. Duquesne further argues that its photo exhibits clearly show that the spalling did not occur in the cemented areas immediately next to the location where the Respondent performed its work. Id. at 6-8. In the second Exception, Duquesne asserts that the ALJ committed an error of law by relying on the adverse inference doctrine in concluding that the Respondent caused the spalling and the three-quarter inch lift in the sidewalk. Id. at 8-9 (citing to John Snow v. Equitable Gas Co., LLC, Docket No. C-2012-2315572 (Order entered July 16, 2013) (Snow)). The Respondent argues that the negative inference drawn by the ALJ is insufficient to carry Mr. Williams’ burden of proof or create substantial evidence to support the Initial Decision. Exc. at 9-10. In addition, Duquesne contends that the fundamental premise underlying the adverse inference doctrine is that access to evidence lies exclusively in the possession of one party. Here, the Respondent asserts, this premise does not apply because Duquesne is not equally suited to the Complainant to testify about the condition of the sidewalk prior to the installation of the new pole. According to Duquesne, Mr. Williams owns the property and has the burden the proof. However, the Respondent states, he failed to offer any corroborating evidence that the sidewalk was in better condition prior