• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Interesting Lawsuit Against City / Building Department

That's really negligent on their part. It's one thing to believe that the soils are undisturbed and not require geotechnical review because the contractor made sure the last few inches looked really good, but they knew it was imported and just asked for compaction testing on the last 12"?

I did recently have to explain to one of our builders that building a pad with material from the lot still requires a geotech. His excuse was "but it's not imported!"
 
I remember a similar file from the before times: town allowed a townhouse complex to be built on organic materials. To make matters worse, the site was once owned by the municipality and the municipality was the one dumping organic materials (sawdust, iirc.)
Let's just say that was settled out of court, in favour of the homeowners.
 
Inspector Gadget said:
I remember a similar file from the before times: town allowed a townhouse complex to be built on organic materials. To make matters worse, the site was once owned by the municipality and the municipality was the one dumping organic materials (sawdust, iirc.)
Let's just say that was settled out of court, in favour of the homeowners.
Click to expand...
It's a little more challenging in the US as they retain statutory immunity.
 
The city is immune from being sued for any mistake unless there is a provable malice aforethought. The cause of action with this lawsuit is that the city knowingly hired incompetent people to man the Building Dept. and that resulted in the plaintiff’s loss. Odds are slim that the plaintiff can prove what everybody involved did or didn’t know.
 
Immunity is more complex. To start it only applies if the city is involved in a regulatory function. In addition if the city creates a special relationship, for example by asking for more that the code requires, the immunity does not apply.
 
Seems to me the only culpability of the town was they didn’t require the soil report.
“The house failed to have a geotechnical investigation required by Florida Building
Code $1803.5.8, when they built the home on compacted fill-material with a shallow foundation;l
 
The plaintiff says the city could clearly see that the civil plans proposed 4-5' of fill over existing grade, and did not require that fill be tested for compaction prior to approving the pads for construction. Then the paintiff says:

​
Where shallow foundations will bear on compacted fill material, the compacted fill shall comply with the provisions of an approved geotechnical report, as set forth in Section 1803.​
Exception: Compacted fill material 12 inches (305 mm) in depth or less need not comply with an approved report, provided the in-place dry density is not less than 90 percent of the maximum dry density at optimum moisture content determined in accordance with ASTM D1557.​

In other words, the plan checker missed that the amount of fill exceeded 12" and should have required a geotechnical report at time of plan check, and the plaintiff is hoping that the geotechnical report would have then specified compaction tests to be required.
 
mtlogcabin said:
I believe the suit is more about incompetency and lack of training of the employees.

She just might win this one.
Click to expand...
There was an initial lawsuit that went on for a few years and did not get traction. This was because of the soils issue. Now they are trying another angle by claiming the city did not hire competent plans examiners and inspectors. This is ongoing and an active lawsuit.
 
My sense is that the City will get off because of statutory immunity unless it can be shown that the city actively contributed to the problem. Claiming that the city has an obligation to protect the owner of the project is a unique concept. Does the plaintiff's lawyer really know what he is doing.

Word to the wise, do not count on the building department to protect yourself. In most cases the engineer hired by the owner who builds project has more experience that the people in the building department.

I suspect to find the cause of the problems you would need to know more about the roles played by various individuals and who made key decisions.
 
None of the codes cited from the Florida Building Code apply to single family dwellings, do they? I would not cite the IBC for an IRC house...
 
Just like the Millennium Tower in SF. We will see if the City will be found Liable.
sfist.com

SF Taxpayers On the Hook For $30 Million to Shore Up the Sinking Millennium Tower

Alas, a new detail has emerged in the as-yet-not-fully-disclosed settlement of multiple lawsuits related to the sinking and tilting Millennium Tower in downtown San Francisco, and it's the fact that SF taxpayers will be footing a piece of the overall bill.
sfist.com sfist.com
 
My understanding is that if an IRC requirement is not satisfied and you can show that it complies with provisions in the IBC that there is no problem. Similarly if the building complies with the IBC you do not need to show compliance with the IRC.
 
mark handler said:
Just like the Millennium Tower in SF. We will see if the City will be found Liable.
sfist.com

SF Taxpayers On the Hook For $30 Million to Shore Up the Sinking Millennium Tower

Alas, a new detail has emerged in the as-yet-not-fully-disclosed settlement of multiple lawsuits related to the sinking and tilting Millennium Tower in downtown San Francisco, and it's the fact that SF taxpayers will be footing a piece of the overall bill.
sfist.com sfist.com
Click to expand...
There is a difference between the city as regulator and a governmental entity engaged in building a building. One may be immune while the other is treated the same as a private entity who built a building.
 
So simply, if a governmental employee doesn't do their job, no one nor the government is liable for any resulting damages?
 
bill1952 said:
So simply, if a governmental employee doesn't do their job, no one nor the government is liable for any resulting damages?
Click to expand...
The immunity is not absolute. If what the employee does is not related to his governmental role there can be immunity. Immunity is often tied to the use of discretion.

If the governmental employee directs an individual to do something that puts the individual at risk he may have created a special relationship and not be able to claim immunity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top