City neglect?

As I patiently await my Pulitzer prize for my last post on oranges, I suppose I could get back to local issues for a bit:

For now, a quick thought about the overland flooding caused by a burst water pipe in Winnipeg. I am sure the city is correct when it says it is not responsible for covering damages unless it is negligent in some way. I am not so sure they aren't negligent. Somebody I know once worked in Ottawa on a project that involved mapping out Canada's water infrastructure. Winnipeg's was particularly bad. I believe there was an understanding that these pipes were not intended to last more than 100 years, though many were older than that, including the one that burst on Notre Dame Ave:

"On Monday, the city said a pipe more than 100 years old had become corroded and was to blame for the break." -ctv-

You can't dispense pills that are past their expiry date. You can't serve meat that has been sitting out on the counter all day. If people suffer because you didn't keep your products fresh and current within accepted guidelines then you are held responsible. Why wouldn't this apply to water mains as well? If the pipe that burst was past it's expiry date, is not the City negligent for not having replaced it?

The city may claim that they are replacing pipes that are "nearing the end of their lifespan", but it has been suggested to me that these are already living on borrowed time. If one of you folks at City Hall have information that says otherwise, let me know.

Something to think about anyhow. If I were one of those homeowners, I would at least look into this. You know, with all the spare time I have between working, looking after the kids, and repairing my damaged basement...