by city inspectors it had passed the inspection but unfortunately in this occasion when two people on a porch it collapsed and they were injured they sued the city and the more of course that action two things that number one there was no special duty city to these people that were out on the porch because there was the city own this in conducting the inspection the city will be duty to the public in general not to the people that are on the porch and secondly in the appropriately for low income households as may be designated by any department of housing and urban development to rehabilitate the structure so the structure is in compliance with the city's maintenance code so i think with the city letter in the agreement there's nothing in there that suggests the city is conducting a safety inspection when it is doing this inspection in order that it has any responsibility for safety on the project i think was clear from this agreement its traditional governmental function in basically ensuring that public funds are being spent properly i mean this is again this is in the record in ten years this is a federal program but these are federal funds that the city federal program and i don't think it should take the sea out of the role of enjoying the benefit of it in the especially where i think you have to see the really not giving anything you know you know program like this for itself i think this is clearly for the benefit of its residents and to deprive the municipality of the benefit of this inspection unit because they have chosen to adapt or accept this hud program for the it's the benefit of   to the public to the only applies when you supposedly is acting within its role as a government and in performing activities that are traditionally governmental and i think inspecting  purely public fund just in your interest to try to further distinguish this current circumstances from where an application section one o five and for example if if if the city accepted mr paddlers application and came out and did the evaluation and found that it was not his roof was in compliance with a particular code but then for some reason mr butler didn't need the green and he was no longer in the program or if for some reason even just didn't pursue the program dictated which contractors mr parker had to choose from gauging in a regular function when they do they have authority and then go forward to force that authority they are engaging in a type of governmental function but it's not the type of governmental function anticipated by the residences to be repaired and even upgraded as the city said in its brief so this is a situation where of course is for the benefit of the entire city to beautify it to make sure that people are living in proper homes but this isn't this isn't a program that is mandated at the war or even you know potentially offered by every city this is a unique determinations it makes for the acceptance of that application unfortunately we didn't we weren't able to get that far into discovery to determine why in particular mr butler's residence was that of course is in compliance with ordinances and that it may fall and injure people this evaluation or a specific refers to an inspection was done with the particular purpose of extended funds to in particular individual it then controlled that evaluation process and control the terms of the real program so with grant on the evaluation was not for the purpose it is complying with the ordinance it was for the purpose of determining whether this particular home what follow within the confines of the rehab program was of the program  hazard it was for the purposes of determining whether the house of hot fire for the program but why does that make a difference as long as it's is a governmental can say for example if the government wouldn't be standing that function if the program was sent in existence they would be going to mr butler's home and just arbitrarily checking his truth to see that inquiries on how to code and whether it needed repairs or allow fines for and make sure that that the property owner not expense sponsor or make sure that his property is up to code in this situation that wasn't being it wasn't a matter  i mean i can see how that argument can be made that distinction in this case needs to be made i mean of course the program is for the moment coming residents to be given an opportunity to make sure that their residences are up to code compliant and safe so in addition to i mean this is this is why this case is distinct from where where where the were code violations and failure to do more on this case it wasn't in the city initiated the practice at that opportunity where it wasn't and in fact doing so would have a chilling effect on these kind of programs contractors would not want to work with the city if they're not going to be able to rely on the city for some protection while they're  working with the city wants the they can also volunteer and worth it as contention will contractors but the city just to the city wasn't wasn't supervising how they did the work they just took a list of contractors that they felt probably had the financial wherewithal to to do this and to not fall behind and to actually work and so we have volunteers on that site to any subcontractor that they chose to live and there's nothing in your brain and that indicates the ease directly to that we will be responsible we will be at the site every day but it is  it is quite a general contractor the city was acting like the general contractor and they have to have some responsibility for the contractors that work under them on their being although they were not at the site general contractors are not at the site every day but they are responsible for they dictate the terms they dictate how how long it will take this even dictated that the money would have to be given back to if they were not if the contractors were not compliant with the program so if it's not good even though it's not expressed in the green then and the city has to have some responsibility in this particular situation they in this case mr harold in this case because of the public duty rules the city in this case would hold to generally to the community as a whole not specifically to mr hero and secondly the court found that under section t the agreement it shows that the city is basically an administrator of a hard program hired makes these funds available but the city is responsible for ensuring that those funds are spent appropriately ensuring that the applicant is a proper qualified and who can under section and that they qualify there and secondly that the repairs or rehabilitation that's needed is actually necessary  looks for conditions of the residents that are now have to call and decide those situations or conditions that should be rehabilitated or repaired with this funding and i think that's what the city approved when the contractors apply it is ridiculous d b c do you think we see some rules and regulations of this program or notices those rules and regulations we didn't get that far in terms of the discovery in this case because it under the record that's created in this case is going out there to ensure th