Submitted by LackSufficient7852 t3_zl7bpj in newhampshire
BostonPilot t1_j04ygou wrote
Reply to comment by otiswrath in Do Not Buy a House in Brookline! There is no water by LackSufficient7852
What about the town? I'm assuming the water never worked as opposed to stopped working after construction finished. Can the plumbing inspector really sign off on a house with no water?
otiswrath t1_j052rqc wrote
One would think but...there is a thing called the Public Duty Doctrine which essentially says since a municipality functions for the public good if they do something negligent then you can't sue them because you are suing the public for whom they are supposed to be working for. You have to show that you are owed a duty specifically not just that a duty to the public is breached.
Now there are exceptions, specifically where the state government has carved out things people can sue municipalities for or sometimes for lack of enforcement.
Here they could argue that the lack of enforcement was the issue but the government hates setting the precedent that they can be sued for things.
Take this on a smaller scale, builder builds a set of stairs, code says they must have a certain rise over run, the code enforcement officer misses it, someone misjudges the stairs and falls down them. Should the tax payers of the town, presumably where the plaintiff also pays taxes be liable? Should the inspector be personally liable for a mistake done in the course of his regular duties? Part of the logic is that municipalities might just not do inspections to avoid the potential liability therefore making everyone less safe.
I know...it is kinda fucked but...there is a sort of logic to it.
Here we have a number of people who if I am understanding the situation correctly may have a class action suit against the builder not necessarily for not providing water but for lying on the disclosures.
Now if it is found that the Inspector was doing something shady like helping the builder commit fraud then the inspector would be personally liable for something there as committing fraud is not a part of his regular duties. Basically if they were negligent then oh well but if it was intended then he is in trouble.
The thing here is that I find it crazy that they did inspections on all of these houses without turning on the water once or that if the inspector and builder were committing some sort of large scale fraud that they thought they could get away with it.
Gets popcorn
This is gonna be interesting.
Sirhc978 t1_j05fkrt wrote
>The thing here is that I find it crazy that they did inspections on all of these houses without turning on the water once
This was like the first thing I did when we went to the open house for the house we ended up buying (in the neighboring town).
hike_me t1_j051ar0 wrote
Right — how does a new build get a certificate of occupancy with no running water? Or is that not a thing in live free or die land?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments