Local Government clueless on its' duty

[wbalsam1]

Recently it came to my attention that a local governmental entity in my same county here in upstate New York hasn't a clue as to its' resonsibility with regard to electrical inspections. 4 out of the 5 members of the government board of elected officials that I polled thought that the liability of electrical inspections was on the local private inspectors working for private inspection companies and thought that the government was free and clear of any responsibility.

They did not realize that inspections performed by private companies were done as contractual arrangements with the inspection agencies and their contractors. Sure, many appointed building officials defer to the private inspector's expertise before they release the Certificate of Occupancy, but they still remain liable for the electrical work that is inspected by private inspectors.

The local officials did not know that.
I am truly amazed, at times. There has been a building code in effect in this county since 1985. Hello!?? :-? Go figure.

 

[petersonra]

generally, government entities have no liability at all for the inspections, regardless of who does them. thats why it is better they are private so they can be sued.

 

[wbalsam1]

generally, government entities have no liability at all for the inspections, regardless of who does them. thats why it is better they are private so they can be sued.

Are you saying that a government building official who also has to sign off on electrical systems does not put the community taxpayers at risk with an incompetent inspection that results in harm to a person or damage to property?

Building inspections are required by law. Electrical inspections are a part of building inspections (systems) and violations can get the permittee a notice of violation, a fine, even imprisonment.....the building inspector's office (town board, city councillors, village trustees) can be sued for negligence and a host of other offenses.

 

[cadpoint]

I really have to say that depends on the exact wording of your state Laws

You said that you know the law what is their AHJ laws that they work under. (( Did I miss that )).

Bottom line is most Government's have a clause as to "going after them".
Either through state or other - laws.

Frankly "YES" its a head-up in your cause/statement, how it is presentable in court, Well OK...

 

[George Stolz]

generally, government entities have no liability at all for the inspections, regardless of who does them. thats why it is better they are private so they can be sued.

I'm a little foggy on my law (still trying to pass the bar exam, fingers crossed), but we can't sue the government?

 

[iwire]

I'm a little foggy on my law (still trying to pass the bar exam, fingers crossed), but we can't sue the government?

Ryan has posted a lot about this before but it is tough to sue an inspector. Basically the inspector would have to be intentionally doing the job wrong.

 

[pfalcon]

We are from the Government and we are here to help.

We are from the Government and we are here to help.

Locally we have to notify the government with a special form that we intend to sue them. We typically have 10 to 30 days after the incident to file the intent to sue. The form must be filed at least 180 days prior to filing the suit. If they make an inquiry regarding the suit we typically have 3 to 30 days to reply. If they must reply they get 30 to 90 days to respond. Further there tends to be a presumption that the government is held innocent unless intent to do harm can be shown. Negligence is forgiven as a burden on the taxpayer. Since intent is frequently impossible to show - most suits are filed purely for reversal and not liability. Not even recompense for the expense of obtaining the reversal.

 

[petersonra]

Are you saying that a government building official who also has to sign off on electrical systems does not put the community taxpayers at risk with an incompetent inspection that results in harm to a person or damage to property?

Building inspections are required by law. Electrical inspections are a part of building inspections (systems) and violations can get the permittee a notice of violation, a fine, even imprisonment.....the building inspector's office (town board, city councillors, village trustees) can be sued for negligence and a host of other offenses.

generally government is exempt from being sued for most anything except what the state says it can sued for.

you can't sue the cops if you get robbed either.

just the way it is.

and BTW, there have been a number of spectacular cases of gross malfeasance of government inspection agencies with no cost to government. think all the inspections in chicago that consisted of an envelope full of cash where later something really awful happened.

 

[petersonra]

I'm a little foggy on my law (still trying to pass the bar exam, fingers crossed), but we can't sue the government?

Google sovereign immunity.

 

[cowboyjwc]

You can sue the government, but you can't sue the individual inspector if he is doing his job. The jurisdiction is required by law to represent the inspector during the time of the lawsuit, but that doesn't mean that when all is said and done that the inspector will still have a job.

Our city right now is getting sued for $7M, saying that we signed off a building befor all of the ADA requirements were met. A ladies wheelchair feel off of a curb and of course she was hurt. What got the suit started was that even though guardrails are not required the company is putting them in anyways, making it look like we missed it. What I was told is just because we did everything right and a video shows that her husband, who was pushing her, actually pushed her off the curb while fiddling with a drink, we may still end up paying something.

Go figure.

 

[WDeanN]

generally government is exempt from being sued for most anything except what the state says it can sued for.

Yet another reason not to trust the gov't with anything.

You get foreclosed on because the mail ran slow - too bad.
You get cancer because of mercury in mandated CFL's - too bad.
Your house burns down because your gov't inspector didn't do his job - too bad.
Your gov't health insurance doesn't cover electrocution - too bad.
Your gov't appointed doctor removes your leg instead of your appendix - too bad.

 

[petersonra]

Our city right now is getting sued for $7M, saying that we signed off a building befor all of the ADA requirements were met.

The reason you can sue over ADA requirements is because the federal government, and in some cases state governments, said you can.

It is not likely that a suit against them would be allowed for the same situation with no ADA issues involved.

 

[DanZ]

I'm a little foggy on my law (still trying to pass the bar exam, fingers crossed), but we can't sue the government?

Nope. Well, yes, but no. They pretty much have to let you sue them. Otherwise, think of all the people that would randomly sue! Someone doesn't want to pay social security, so they sue, etc.

Ryan has posted a lot about this before but it is tough to sue an inspector. Basically the inspector would have to be intentionally doing the job wrong.

Yeah, and liability still falls on the EC, since he did the work, and could have done work after the inspector left. The Architect and Engineer can also be sued easily.

The reason you can sue over ADA requirements is because the federal government, and in some cases state governments, said you can.

It is not likely that a suit against them would be allowed for the same situation with no ADA issues involved.

Well, that and most suits are against an individual or corporation. Most municipalities can't even enforce ADAAG, except as noted in the local building codes. But you still have to comply to get a C.O. If you've got some time, figure that one out!

 

[rbalex]

In my personal experience, if you show me the statute that gives an AHJ thier authority, I'll show you where it exempts them from liability.

One of my favorites:

SEC. 57.01.09. NONRESPONSIBILITY OF CITY.

Neither the City of Los Angeles nor any department, nor any board, commission, officer, or employee thereof shall be held liable or responsible for any damage or injury caused by or resulting from any inspection or approval made under the provisions of this article.

 

[cowboyjwc]

The reason you can sue over ADA requirements is because the federal government, and in some cases state governments, said you can.

It is not likely that a suit against them would be allowed for the same situation with no ADA issues involved.

Yes that is true, we have to follow both federal and state ADA. Our staff is highly trained and our supervisors hold us to a high level of compliance, but we also get the typical complaint that none of the other local jurisdictions are as tough as we are. Street to suite.

Rbalex: Man there's a get out of jail free card if I ever saw one. Wonder how that holds up in court? I'll have to ask at one of our next local IAEI meetings.

 

[wbalsam1]

NYS law. ? 72-a. Penalty of officer for failure to execute mandate and make
return. An officer who fails to execute a mandate according to its
command and make a return thereon of his proceedings is liable to the
party aggrieved for the damages sustained by him, in addition to any
other punishment or proceeding authorized by law.

This distinction is important because an "arm of the state" can claim 11th Amendment immunity, while a local government entity (e.g., a county, municipal corporation, or other political subdivision of the state) generally cannot claim immunity.
If you are suing the state, a state agency, or an "arm of the state," and you are seeking prospective injunctive relief, you cannot do it directly, and must instead name a state official in his or her official capacity in order to proceed.

 

[petersonra]

Yes that is true, we have to follow both federal and state ADA. Our staff is highly trained and our supervisors hold us to a high level of compliance, but we also get the typical complaint that none of the other local jurisdictions are as tough as we are. Street to suite.

Rbalex: Man there's a get out of jail free card if I ever saw one. Wonder how that holds up in court? I'll have to ask at one of our next local IAEI meetings.

I believe CA has a state law that specifically exempts local governments from general liability for things they do in the normal course of operations, with some minor exceptions. I doubt LA has the power under state law to exempt itself.

 

[cowboyjwc]

I believe CA has a state law that specifically exempts local governments from general liability for things they do in the normal course of operations, with some minor exceptions. I doubt LA has the power under state law to exempt itself.

There is something and if I could remember where I put it I could quote it.:smile:

That's why I was wondering how it would hold up it court.

 

[petersonra]

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov&group=00001-01000&file=815-818.9

I quoted a few relavent passages

GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 815-818.9
815. Except as otherwise provided by statute:
(a) A public entity is not liable for an injury, whether such
injury arises out of an act or omission of the public entity or a
public employee or any other person.
(b) The liability of a public entity established by this part
(commencing with Section 814) is subject to any immunity of the
public entity provided by statute, including this part, and is
subject to any defenses that would be available to the public entity
if it were a private person.

818.2. A public entity is not liable for an injury caused by
adopting or failing to adopt an enactment or by failing to enforce
any law.

818.4. A public entity is not liable for an injury caused by the
issuance, denial, suspension or revocation of, or by the failure or
refusal to issue, deny, suspend or revoke, any permit, license,
certificate, approval, order, or similar authorization where the
public entity or an employee of the public entity is authorized by
enactment to determine whether or not such authorization should be
issued, denied, suspended or revoked.

818.6. A public entity is not liable for injury caused by its
failure to make an inspection, or by reason of making an inadequate
or negligent inspection, of any property, other than its property (as
defined in subdivision (c) of Section 830), for the purpose of
determining whether the property complies with or violates any
enactment or contains or constitutes a hazard to health or safety.

Incidentally, I did not even have to look for it. I ran across it while reading Alan Gura's latest masterpiece.

 

[mpd]

I would imagine any inspector who was grossly negligent in there inspections, and somebody got hurt could & should be sued, but proving that would probably be hard, because those type of inspectors nobody complains about until something happens, until something happens he's the greatest inspector around because he passes everybody