• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Building Officials and Inspectors don't have Immunity

VP... I believe in the first link they are suing everyone in the design and construction process including John Does 1-250 to represent those that have yet to be named.

In the next pleading it may also include John Does 251-3000 for those that may have been on this board or the former ICC board that may have known or should have known that individuals or organizations had conspired to defraud them. Clearly the ICC and the California Standards Board are culpable. The code should have specified as it is a legislative duty to provide mandatory requirements for providing additional... What ever.
 
Thanks, FyrBldgGuy... I didn't read the whole pleading (surprise). This just sounds like an example of "It's not my fault, somebody else has to be responsible".
 
Agree with Mark especially

The pleading suggests that the plaintiffs were much more involved in making decisions and approving subs than is normal. Along with the control/involvement one accepts some liability for the results.
Click to expand...
The plantiffs controlled the money that let this project proceed so long.

Do I spell and puncuate correctly?
 
Bob:

The first link is the complaint against the design professionals and the contractors, the second is against the city and it's employees. You might note that she alleges that the building inspector doesn't have a college degree, the most she could find was that he enrolled in a community college for an AA degree, but found no evidence that he ever received that degree. The cost isn't really out of line for Atherton, if you recall I posted about a Woodside home and 7 days of continuous framing inspections, Woodside is only a few miles west, and it has two homes that I know of that ran $70 million and $68 million, I also noted that she only has $600,000 worth of cabinets made from junk, the $68 million dollar home has $6 million worth of cabinets.

It's also noteworthy that she was permitted in 2000, that was after the structural code, but before the Energy and Green Codes, God only knows what her house would cost if permitted today, LEED Platinum homes are running three times the costs of normal construction from what I hear.

The house is 8,500 square feet, Zillow has it at $5.8 million, that's only $700 a square foot, homes around Silicon Valley run $500 to $1,000 a foot, here it is if you are interested.

Read about Atherton. I lived in Atherton for a few months 55 years ago while I was in college, nice town.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I've always stated monetary payment at the local level is bribery, monetary payment at state or federal level is called lobbying, go figure.
 
krsweidy: First, we are professionals who take a great deal of pride in what we do. To play amongst us, you need a thick skin.

Let me welcome you to the BB. We do want the general public to bring us issues. You may not get want you want as a response. We do not all agree even on code issues all the time. Hope you read this cause I know you are online.

To the rest play nice.
 
Yes, we do want the general public to bring us issues, and most of us will go out of our way to help them. However, I have little respect for those who file frivolous lawsuits. I have little respect for those who choose to blame everyone but themselves when things go south. I have little respect for those who focus on peripheral subject matter to use as a 'straw man' to beat up, instead of focusing on the real issues.

Trying to blame the city because the engineered foundation was based on a geotech report that was prepared by a civil engineer rather than a geotechnical engineer? Are you kidding me?

There is myriad case history with situations just as this. Time and time again, the courts have ruled that the city did not owe a special duty to the plaintiff, nor was a special relationship formed just because the city inspected their property. Furthermore, no special duty is created by state or local adoption of a building code. Such adoption is intended to protect the general public, and does not constitute a specific duty to an individual. If that were the case, cities would be responsible for the correction of every code violation of every building that received inspection. Not going to happen.

As I said, the suit is destined to fail; it is good money being thrown after bad...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Texasbo: I agree! Have experienced first hand a bad Geo report just a few years back. 48k / 3 story building began to sink on one side.

Seems they didn't bore all the areas shown on the report. Building got fixed and I am sure some legal actions was taken. As the BCO for the ahj, I had to accept the original Geotech report when seal and stamped.
 
That was a kind of strange way to approach the forum community . . . . what reaction was expected, I really don't know.
 
Yankee said:
That was a kind of strange way to approach the forum community . . . . what reaction was expected, I really don't know.
Click to expand...
Yes Ms. Sweidy. We are in complete agreement. Obviously, you know more, are smarter, and spell better than damn near anyone else alive on this planet. Please come back to brighten this forum often.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top