# Limit of Liability for Municipality does not cover inspectors



## jar546 (Mar 17, 2014)

A recent and ongoing case from Alabama:

View attachment 2039


View attachment 2040


W Morrow Law Suit News.pdf

Waynes Law Suit 3-14 Mont Advertizer.pdf

W Morrow Law Suit News.pdf

Waynes Law Suit 3-14 Mont Advertizer.pdf


----------



## fatboy (Mar 17, 2014)

Should be a slam dunk to dismiss.......but who knows anymore? Be interesting to hear the final ruling.


----------



## Mark K (Mar 17, 2014)

When I click on the links I am told I do not have permission to access the page.  Is that your intention?


----------



## cda (Mar 17, 2014)

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


----------



## fatboy (Mar 17, 2014)

Mark, here ia a link to a table that shows you what privileges you have, based on your level of support to the forum.

http://www.thebuildingcodeforum.com/forum/website-discussion/9677-difference-between-sawhorse-registered-member.html


----------



## steveray (Mar 17, 2014)

They would actually have to establish liability before the cap would matter....I can't imagine they ever could when the unit was vandalized...


----------



## jar546 (Mar 17, 2014)

Mark K said:
			
		

> When I click on the links I am told I do not have permission to access the page.  Is that your intention?


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.


----------



## Mark K (Mar 17, 2014)

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.


----------



## cda (Mar 17, 2014)

I can access both.

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

Maybe a work firewall??


----------



## rshuey (Mar 17, 2014)

It downloads right away for me. No problems.


----------



## Mark K (Mar 17, 2014)

No work firewall.  Have accessed other links from this forum.


----------



## fatboy (Mar 17, 2014)

Isn't "downloading" an attachment the same as opening a link?


----------



## fatboy (Mar 17, 2014)

Oh, you answered my comment while I was posting. Don't know............


----------



## Keystone (Mar 17, 2014)

From the information provided, sounds like the lawyer is throwing **** against the wall to see what sticks. Counter-sue...


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Mar 17, 2014)




----------



## cda (Mar 17, 2014)

Mark K said:
			
		

> No work firewall.  Have accessed other links from this forum.


http://www.thebuildingcodeforum.com/forum/attachments/industry-news/2304d1395104314-limit-liability-municipality-does-not-cover-inspectors-w-morrow-law-suit-news.pdf


----------



## mjesse (Mar 17, 2014)

Keystone said:
			
		

> From the information provided, sounds like the lawyer is throwing **** against the wall to see what sticks. Counter-sue...


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


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Mar 18, 2014)

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."


​


----------



## Mark K (Mar 18, 2014)

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."


----------



## Mark K (Mar 18, 2014)

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.


----------



## jar546 (Mar 18, 2014)

Mark K said:
			
		

> cdaWhen 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:
> 
> ...


Mark, I explained it but somehow my message was moderated by someone else.  I'll try again.

You have the ability to upload attachments and to view them.  You do not have the ability to download them.  I think the problem (which is a surprise to me) is that a PDF file must be downloaded to view it, hence the problem.  I'll see what solution I can come up with,

Moderator, leave this post alone please


----------



## mjesse (Mar 18, 2014)

jar546 said:
			
		

> Mark, I explained it but somehow my message was moderated by someone else. Moderator, leave this post alone please


It was me. We can put all the posts back in if you'd like.

It seemed to me as though an important thread topic was becoming cluttered with non-related discussion of how to use the site.

I didn't want the subject getting lost/ignored


----------



## cda (Mar 18, 2014)

Mark K said:
			
		

> cdaWhen 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:
> 
> ...


You have a Gold Card????


----------

