• 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

SO SUE ME! / Take the inspector to court.

Jobsaver

Jobsaver

Registered User
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
851
Location
Central Arkansas (pop. 30,000 - near Little rock)
Rio asked a good question on another thread that I believe merits a topic.

I have noticed many threats of litigation towards inspectors throughout this forum, but in practice, have not heard of a single case against an inspector around central AR.

I have been named in two lawsuits resulting from the city condemning and razing properties. In each case, once the opposition establish that T's were crossed in the notification process, the cases were settled in favor of the city.

What is an inspector's liability.

Anybody else out there experience losses due to litigation as a result of performing governmental duties? Any serious threats?
 
Suits against the building official or inspectors are not common but they have occured and have been sucessful. If the individual has been making a good faith effort to operate in accordance with the adopted regulation he should be immune from liability. On the other hand if it is clear that what he was requiing/allowing was not in conformance with the adopted regulations and he should have known it then there is no immunity.

The reasons that sucessful suits are not common is because in most cases it does not make economic sense. The cost of suing the building official is often more than the cost of making the changes he wants. In addition most building officials probably do not have a lot of assets. But there are times where an individual wants revenge. There are also situations where by establishing that there was a pattern of illegal behavior that the City should have known about, the plaintif can tap into a bigger pot of money.

Even though it may be cheaper to accommodate the building official's illegal requests than litigate, it does not make it proper for the building official to ignore the law.
 
^ ^ ^ ^

Jobsaver,

If you have access to your AHJ attorney, you could ask him/her

if there is any case law [ in Central AR ] or other areas

regarding your topic. Make sure though, that if you DO ask

them, that you / your dept. won't be billed for it. Our AHJ

attorney bills our dept. whenever the dept. director calls

and asks legal questions. Something called "billable time"

in 10 or 15 min. increments.

Or, in addition to asking on here, you could do some searching

on the internet for your questions... :cool:

v v v v
 
north star said:
^ ^ ^ ^Jobsaver,

If you have access to your AHJ attorney, you could ask him/her



v v v v
Click to expand...
Thanks north star.

Our attorney is on retainer. The city pays him 50K per year whether he works for my department or not. He is a nice guy. But . . . never mind . . . if I say what should be said, I am sure to be barred from this forum for life. &!@#$%^&*()*&*^^%%$ city #$%^&*)*^$@!@ attorney!, my @$#%^&*^$#!
 
To add to what Mark said, in NY we would refer to it as being "reasonable" rather than "acting in good faith". If it can be established that an individual acted reasonably, it is unlikely the Court would find against them.

n.b. you don't have to be right, you have to be reasonable.

I've been sued for millions, had a Federal suit claiming breech of rights. It was pro se, so the Court entertained it for a while until it was finally tossed.

Our municipality is insured for such events, so while we do have our own attorney on retainer, when we get suits like these the ins co retains a firms that deals strictly with municipal suits.

Every inspector should know where their indemnification comes from. Do not assume that because you work for the government that they will indemnify your [reasonable] actions. In my case it is local law, and requires that I make written notification to be indemnified. It may be in your contract. Bottom line is if you don't see it in writing, you are only indemnified until the govt feels like cutting you loose.
 
I find the ICC book "Legal Aspects of Code Administration" to be very informative when it comes to this and other legal matters. I re-read the book once a year cover to cover as a reminder of my legal obligations and risks....
 
Let's see... never been sued. Have been threatened by builders, designers, PE's that stamp plans but never knew what was in the plans, and yes by lawyers.

Been fired once for refusing to sign off on plans that were not compliant with the code. The fire marshal that fired me is still a friend and has given me written recomendations. He was forcibly retired and so was the fire chief.

The only times I have heard of an inspector ever being sued was due to improper (misconduct) actions. I shut down an inspector that wrote 134 fake violations on one construction site. He broke the builder, all that happened before I got the complaint and took action.
 
About 20 years ago our former BO was taken to court over a Stop Work Order and lost. The city paid all attorney fees, not a big deal. The only reason the BO was personally named was to get to the city.
 
Got sued one time over an entrance to a corner lot. Weird situation. It all started 20 some odd years ago a lot was zoned for duplexes. The to be owner wanted to build a burger joint. had to get a change to the zoning in order to build the burger joint.

In the zone change it stipulated that a screening wall was to be constructed adjacent to the street. If the screening wall was removed then the zoning would revert back to the original zoning. Ummm ever hear of contract zoning????

Okay, all of this documentation was on a zoning change that happened 20 years prior to a car wash that was wanting to build on the burger joint property that I had no idea of. The burger joint had been razed for 5 or 6 years, car wash comes in, has plans to have an exit onto the side road. Front of the car wash was a thoroughfare street, side street residential. No problem...we don't have any regulations that would not allow this to happen. Issue permit...start excavating for the new building...raze the screening fence on the side of the residential street.....and BAM!!!! The neighbors bring in a copy of the minutes to the zone change that happened 20 years ago!! Ooops!!!

Get with city attorney, put stop work order on the permit until a revision of plans are resubmitted, car wash says they would not have purchased the property if they knew about the requirements...BOOM I get sued because I approved the plans with the screening fence being removed.

Went to court........actually won the case. I really don't see how because I felt like the requirement was the result of contract zoning. Our attorney did an excellent job...I think I could have won the case for the car wash but....I'm not an attorney AND it may have been a conflict of interest suing myself

...... :)
 
Back when I was behind the counter, our city attorney's advice was so long as you are consistent - even if you're wrong but don't know it - you're pretty well protected under Florida law.

The reason to "go legal" for an applicant is to counter the jurisdiction's ability to hold a permit hostage with increased overhead and political costs.

Gum up the works with memoranda, emails, letters, and anything else that requires a written response.
 
I agree with Bryan, read and re-read "Legal Aspects of Code Administration". Make sure you understand the difference between "misfeasance" and "malfeasance". Now go do your job and let the lawyers do whatever lawyers do!
 
The Us system of laws post American Revolution got Rid of most of the KIng says This and the King Says that in favor of

WE the People. Except we kept most of the legal process with the minor exception of tort law where in england if you sue the loser pays.

the other aspect that was retained but minus the king was the concept ( Soverign (KING) Imunity }

Basically the King (now State ) can do no wrong. and that transfers to All the Kings (states) MEN.

in RI it looks like this in state law and yes you need the states permission to sue the state

§ 23-27.3-107.9 Relief from personal responsibility.

The state building commissioner, the members and staff of the building code standards committee and the board of standards and appeals, the building official, officer, or employee charged with the enforcement, administration and/or review of this code, while acting for the state or a municipality, shall not thereby render himself or herself liable personally, and he or she is hereby relieved from all personal liability for any damages that may accrue to persons or property as a result of any act required or permitted in the discharge of his or her official duties. Any suit instituted against any of these officers or employees because of an act performed by him or her in the lawful discharge of his or her duties and under the provisions of this code shall be defended.... and on it goes.

If you are working within your assigned duties (Not taking graft or strealing) you are a Kingsman (Louie Louie Loueye)
 
I know of one case here where an inspector and the department was named in a suit along with a contractor due to an existing problem that was remote to the area of a remodel that was missed by the contractor and the inspector that had not had a reason to go looking for it there.

It took one motion from the county attorney to get us out of it.
 
How about third party inspection agencies, inspectors who contract with municipalities to perform all building code official duties under a state law?
 
most 3rd party agencies are required to have insurance to cover claims... as they are acting (usually in lieu of the government), but as agents of the government. Still, as long as the inspector is acting in good faith (with none of the feasance brothers.. non, mis or mal).. the case will get tossed.

It's when the inspector enforces "what they want" not what the code or zoning ordinance requires... when your position may become indefensible by the jurisdiction.. then.. hire a good lawyer.
 
Legal aspects now is one of the two reference books for the Property Maintenance ICC exam. It is also used with the C.B.O. exam. It is very important that P.M. people and B.O.'s know the legal side of what they can and can't do. It would be easy to abuse your power otherwise. In Virginia all inspectors must take state sponsored classes. The second day of the first class is all legal stuff. This training is critical so that you know what you can and can't do and what your obligations are. Nice thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top