I couldn't agree more with your points - if O'Neill followed the code then he did nothing wrong legally. That's not to say that developers and the architects and engineers and contractors they hire should not go the extra mile beyond building codes to ensure safety. However, the fire appears to have been caused by hot blow torches near flammable material and this could provide for negligence on behalf of O'Neill and his contractors and the opening for litigation, and I'm also sure the lawyer who is suing will really dig around to make sure all aspects of the building code were followed.

I also agree that the government entity that drafted and voted to approve what certainly appear to be severely lacking codes in regards to building materials and where firewalls should be, etc. should be held legally accountable, but it is not that easy.

Pennsylvania (last I checked) is one of 14 states where the government is not immune from the wrongful issuance of a building permit by a building inspector, but I would expect the Conshy government to have tort immunity in regards to what the building code says as law, and thus be immune from litigation unless a building inspector did something wrong.

You ask me, it goes to the government having too much power, and when the government has no concern about being sued, it brings about laziness and cutting corners and corrupt decisions.

Judicial immunity, which derives from sovereign immunity, is the absolute immunity of a judge or magistrate from any kind of civil liability for an act performed in the judge's official capacity. Thus, a judge can make a decision that totally abrogates the rule of law (on purpose!) and is free from being sued. The recourse is to appeal the case to a higher court - and pay more money.

A prosecutor is also generally immune for bringing criminal charges – even if they are bogus. This doctrine is intended to protect prosecutors from frivolous and retaliatory actions. The U.S. Supreme Court case of Imbler v. Pachtman is often cited in discussion of prosecutorial misconduct. There, the court distinguished between "those aspects of the prosecutor's responsibility that cast him in the role of an administrator or investigative officer rather than that of advocate" (that is, a prosecutor). It is only as a prosecutor that a D.A. has absolute immunity. Otherwise, the prosecutor’s immunity is qualified; he is not automatically immunized against misconduct that he should have known was a violation of law.

Qualified immunity grants immunity to individuals performing tasks as part of the government. Certain individuals are immune from lawsuits "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights" (like in Narberth recently). Certain individuals who are not government employees may have qualified immunity if they are considered a "state actor".

One quick thought: Folks seem to be focussing on the welders torch... BUT that should only be an "oh by the way" type comment. Regardless of the ignition source the fire should not have spread like it did. I think we need to focus on the following questions:

Was the building up to code?
Was the proper code used?
Were the buildings inspected for code compliance?

And toughest question, is the code the problem? Is the code setting process unduly influenced by the folks who are the subjects of the code. Remember many years ago when the "firewalls" between the living spaces went up and through the roof?

Check out this op-ed. I don't agree with everything in it, but it is thought provoking,and it's a writer I admire from ablog (that is as opposed to afar)for witty and razer sharp writing:

The Conshy fire and the hand of fate
By: LISA MOSSIE, For The Times Herald08/21/2008

About 20 years ago, my friends and I were on our way home from a night of bowling at Facenda Whitaker lanes. It was very late, probably 1 or 2 o'clock in the morning, and we were all tired. We were driving down a hill near our house, when suddenly a tree fell across the road and right in front of our car. My boyfriend slammed on the brakes just in time. The tree had missed us, literally, by inches.

I never found out what caused the tree to fall in the first place. It was a relatively calm spring evening with no wind or rain, so there was no obvious reason for that tree to fall when it did. The event itself was so freakish, that for days afterward I had to keep asking myself if it really happened.

Life can turn on a dime. If the guy in front of us on Ridge Pike had been going just five miles per hour faster, if we had left the bowling alley just a half a minute later, if we had caught the light at Ridge and Butler, we could have been crushed under that tree and my life today, if I had survived at all, would possibly be completely different than it is now.

If only the design of the balconies on The Stables had not been changed. If only someone had seen those tiny bits of hot molten slag that had lodged within the lumber. If only the torches' fuel had run out an hour sooner, perhaps the recent Conshohocken fire would never have happened.

The event itself was horrifying to watch. Like many in the area, I was glued to my television, watching the footage on the local news in stunned disbelief. My heart broke for the victims as they stood by helplessly and watched their worldly possessions get consumed in the fire.

But large-scale tragedies, of which the Conshohocken fire certainly qualifies, have fallen into a predictable and unpleasant pattern of aftermath, which can most easily be defined as "Monday morning quarterbacking." And with each subsequent tragedy, the griping begins sooner under the guise of, "How can we prevent this tragedy from ever happening again?" with the ultimate goal of "Who can we blame for this?"

Belmont Ma. Citizen Herald

S.D.
Wed Sep 17, 2008, 01:51 PM EDT
Belmont, Mass.
Belmont Citizen Herald

To look out of our windows and see the vegetation results of increased precipitation over the summer, we are reminded that our conservation cause is not only a neighborhood one, but one for all of Belmont, state and nation.
The forest of Belmont Uplands is important for national global climate protection, preserving wildlife species, and we humans in the neighborhood of Winn Brook. Our area was the first to suffer from municipal planning mistakes and priorities. Town efforts are presently being made to rectify a piece of the problem. Towards that end, neighbors and regional friends of Winn Brook area have been engaged in a civil action over the last two years to counter a gigantic national developer from Pennsylvania. The developer’s record is questioned by many on the East Coast. Recently, his $53 million dollar development in Pennsylvania made hundreds homeless with a shocking inferno tragedy which hit the front page of newspapers. The fire engendered law suits from the homeless condo owners in terms of poor design and fire prevention systems [The Save Ardmore Coalition and blog in Pennsylvania has the details.].
While we applaud the success of Rep. Brownsberger’s Bill 21 to purchase the area, passing incredible hurdles of the House and Senate (a hard task for Will and his colleagues), we cannot understand the governor’s veto. This is much more than a housing issue, but an environmental one of Belmont’s well being, and of broader significance as climate change is upon us. Neighbors have suffered many times over the years from property deterioration, and stress, as Little Pond has flooded and become contaminated from algae and e-coli.

There should be no doubt in anyone’s mind that this is a critical health, environmental and property cause for the entire town and beyond. The town, legislature and governor’s office must protect this land through either funding or taking. Belmont’s Conservation Commission’s independent assessment of the Uplands, has verified our concerns. For many years, they have conducted a public heroic hearing process in behalf of the town. The land is worth much less now because we all know it has been filled and must be re-evaluated. The uplands woods is almost impossible to build on without serious environmental side effects to nearby homes and the Mystic River watershed, according to some of the Belmont Conservation Commission reports, and additionally, our notable and paid specialists.

We have been greatly heartened by generous support from broader Belmont, but now are weary. We would like to know whether there continues to be interest in our efforts. Thus far the diligence of the Coalition, together with the official town stance, have prevented the development from going ahead, benefiting the environmental integrity of our town.

On behalf of the Coalition to Preserve Belmont Uplands and Winn Brook Neighborhood