1. 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 clicking here: Upgrades
    Dismiss Notice

Limit of Liability for Municipality does not cover inspectors

Discussion in 'Industry News' started by jar546, Mar 17, 2014.

  1. fatboy

    fatboy Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2009
    Messages:
    5,960
    Likes Received:
    665
    Should be a slam dunk to dismiss.......but who knows anymore? Be interesting to hear the final ruling.
     
  2. Mark K

    Mark K Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,633
    Likes Received:
    185
    When I click on the links I am told I do not have permission to access the page. Is that your intention?
     
  3. cda

    cda Sawhorse

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    18,235
    Likes Received:
    1,294
    Yep never know

    A person drove past a fire truck trying to keep people out of high water and person died

    City got sued and a judgement was awarded
     
  4. fatboy

    fatboy Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2009
    Messages:
    5,960
    Likes Received:
    665
  5. steveray

    steveray Sawhorse

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2009
    Messages:
    7,253
    Likes Received:
    1,097
    They would actually have to establish liability before the cap would matter....I can't imagine they ever could when the unit was vandalized...
     
  6. jar546

    jar546 *****istrator

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Messages:
    7,715
    Likes Received:
    727
    I am going to try to figure this one out. You an upload attachments but not download them. I did not know that it stopped you from viewing it.
     
  7. Mark K

    Mark K Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,633
    Likes Received:
    185
    I have looked at the list of privileges and it is not clear what classification the links provided by jar546 fall under.

    Without the ability to view the links, and I assume others have the same difficulty, this thread is not usable for many other registered members or guests. Was this the intention? I am just trying to understand the rules.
     
  8. cda

    cda Sawhorse

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    18,235
    Likes Received:
    1,294
    I can access both.

    When you click on one another box pops up and asks if you want to open.

    Maybe a work firewall??
     
  9. rshuey

    rshuey Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2010
    Messages:
    516
    Likes Received:
    0
    It downloads right away for me. No problems.
     
  10. Mark K

    Mark K Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,633
    Likes Received:
    185
    No work firewall. Have accessed other links from this forum.
     
  11. fatboy

    fatboy Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2009
    Messages:
    5,960
    Likes Received:
    665
    Isn't "downloading" an attachment the same as opening a link?
     
  12. fatboy

    fatboy Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2009
    Messages:
    5,960
    Likes Received:
    665
    Oh, you answered my comment while I was posting. Don't know............
     
  13. Keystone

    Keystone Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2010
    Messages:
    1,027
    Likes Received:
    140
    From the information provided, sounds like the lawyer is throwing **** against the wall to see what sticks. Counter-sue...
     
  14. Francis Vineyard

    Francis Vineyard Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2010
    Messages:
    3,113
    Likes Received:
    421
  15. cda

    cda Sawhorse

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    18,235
    Likes Received:
    1,294
  16. mjesse

    mjesse Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    988
    Likes Received:
    12
    I agree.

    - Inspected 5 months prior to incident.

    - Someone had damaged the AC unit in order to steal copper, thereby exposing live wires.

    Be better off trying to sue the copper thieves. :eyeroll
     
  17. Francis Vineyard

    Francis Vineyard Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2010
    Messages:
    3,113
    Likes Received:
    421
    Wayne Morrow v. Shameka Caldwell, as mother and next fried of Keandarick




    "Morrow stated that there was a raised concrete pad at the back of the building and that there was an air-conditioning system on the raised concrete pad. Morrow also stated that there was a chain-link fence around the entire concrete pad, that the entry to the system was by a locked gate, and that the top of the fence was also enclosed by a chain-link fence that went over the air-conditioning system and was secured to the building. Morrow stated that, above the concrete pad, there was an electrical source that could be used to install a floodlight ("the electrical source") and that the electrical source was covered by a circular, weatherproof junction box. Morrow further stated that he did not find any electrical defects or any dangerous conditions with regard to the electrical system and that he approved the premises for the restoration of power.

    On January 30, 2009, Alabama Powerrestored power to the premises.On June 30, 2009, Keandarick Russell, a minor, was staying with his great-grandmother, who lived next door to the premises. Russell, who was playing on the concrete pad on which the air-conditioning system was located, waselectrocuted when he came in contact with the chain-link fence. When the incident occurred, the gate in the fence was broken, the top part of the enclosure had been rolled back and was resting against the wall of the building, and the wires from the electrical source were not covered by a junction box. The wires from the electrical source had come in contact with a portion of the fence, and, as a result, the fence had become electrified and Russell was electrocuted when he touched the fence."




    "Caldwell argued that she had presentedevidence that created a reasonable inference that Morrow wasnot entitled to State-agent immunity under Cranman because,she says, he "failed to enforce the [National Electrical Code]as he was required and failed to follow the dictates of theElectrical Ordinance of the City of Montgomery in a willfulmanner and in complete disregard for the safety of others."The trial court denied Morrow's summary-judgment motion.Subsequently, Morrow filed a petition for a writ of mandamuswith this Court, in which he asked this Court to compel thetrial court to enter a summary judgment in his favor on thebasis of State-agent immunity. This Court denied the petition without ordering an answer and briefs."



     
  18. Mark K

    Mark K Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,633
    Likes Received:
    185
    cda

    When I click on http://www.thebuildingcodeforum.com/...-suit-news.pdf I get the following message.

    "Mark K, you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

    1.Your user account may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?

    2.If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation."
     
  19. Mark K

    Mark K Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,633
    Likes Received:
    185
    My understanding is that an employee of the local government acting in his official capacity has immunity in these manners unless he is acting in a malicious manner. Thus the cap on liability amount should never come up as an issue. I wonder if the defense attorney is competent?

    They are also saying that if you touch the job once you are liable for any problems that occur in the future.
     

Share This Page