Quality Court Condominium Association v. Quality Hill Development Corp.

In 1986, residents in a new condominium development had significant structural issues with their units upon moving in, including water leaks and floor-joist spans that were too long. One unit owner, Robert Girouard, pointed out these concerns to Todd Olbrych, a city building inspector, when Olbrych was inspecting his unit. However, Olbrych stated that because the architect had stamped the plans, he had to approve the certificate of occupancy. The development’s condo association, the Quality Court Condominium Association (the association) (plaintiff) filed a complaint with the state attorney general’s office. As a result of this complaint, in 1987, Robert Hunt, a state building official, inspected several units in the development with a representative of the attorney general’s office and Olbrych. In his limited inspection, Hunt found seven building-code violations and informed the city of the violations in writing. Hunt also stated that the architect’s plans were irrelevant to Olbrych’s inspection. Around this time, Olbrych also returned to the development on multiple occasions. Despite all of this, in December 1987, Olbrych wrote to his supervisor that the units in the development were in compliance with the building code. The association sued the developer and the City of Pawtucket (defendants). The city asserted immunity based on the public-duty doctrine. The association argued that a special duty existed between the parties. The trial court denied the city’s motion for a directed verdict, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the association. The city appealed.