We conclude that these actions merely demonstrate that the city required appellants to comply with the code and pointed out deficiencies in the building plans. But even if Paulson specified the type of corridor ceilings to be constructed and was incorrect in his code interpretation, the city is protected from liability by statutory immunity. In Anderson, the supreme court noted that even if the proposed use of the land had been so clearly illegal as to eliminate any city discretion, the city would still be immune from liability. Furthermore, the court noted that the permit recipient and those who act for him are charged with the knowledge of the laws regulating the granting of the permit and any expense incurred is at the owner's risk, at least in so far as the city is concerned. If a city is immune from liability even if one of its officials issues an illegal permit, the city cannot be held liable here for the lesser claim of allegedly misconstruing the building code.
Appellants have an independent duty to know the code as it relates to their construction project.
Moreover, the evidence does not permit an inference that the city assumed a direct duty toward appellants, such as was found in Gilbert v. Billman Constr. In Gilbert, the supreme court concluded that the district court properly submitted a negligence issue to the jury where the evidence demonstrated that the county assumed a direct duty to the plaintiffs because the county sanitarian had designed the approved plans. There is no evidence indicating that the city actually designed the corridors. The city simply required that the building plans comply with its interpretation of the building codes. Appellant's emphasis on Gilbert is misplaced for other reasons.