In an ongoing lawsuit surrounding the 2023 collapse that killed three people, legal representation for two Davenport city employees claim they have qualified immunity and are thus protected from civil suits.
Many former residents and family members of loved ones killed in the collapse filed a lawsuit against the city and three officials: City Administrator Corri Spiegel, Development and Neighborhood Services Director Richard Oswald and Chief Building Inspector Trisha Pradhan. The lawsuit claims they were negligent in their failure to vacate tenants from the building after conducting an inspection of the west wall.
“Oswald acted negligently, in a willful and wanton manner, and without due regard to the health and safety of others,” the lawsuit states. “His acts, omissions, and overall course of conduct in the face of foreseeable harm were outrageous, egregious, utterly without conscience, and warrant punitive damages.”
Similar statements were alleged against Pradhan.
A district court judge partially denied the city officials' motion to dismiss the case in April 2024, finding Spiegel to be protected by qualified immunity, but not Oswald or Pradhan.
“The law was clearly established that city officials were required to serve notice and post on premises that an order to vacate a building had been issued,” District Court Judge Mark Lawson said in his ruling.
Oswald and Pradhan appealed the decision and the Iowa Supreme Court is considering whether they have qualified immunity under Iowa Code.
Attorney Jason O’Rourke represents the city employees in their appeal. He said they should have qualified immunity since a third party caused the harm and the government allegedly failed in its duty to protect those impacted.
“When a city or its employees don’t affirmatively create the danger, that’s when it applies,” O’Rourke said. “If the city creates the danger or owns the property, then a lot of times we get outside of the public duty doctrine. But that’s not what we have here.”
The public duty doctrine generally protects the government from being sued by individuals over its failing to provide a duty that it owes the public.
"I think the court absolutely can rule on the public duty doctrine," O’Rourke said when asked if the doctrine applies, given that it had not been raised in an earlier filing.
Attorney Ryan Koopmans defended the lower court’s decision, saying that government actors only have qualified immunity when they are found to have deprived someone of a right.
“If a state employee hits me and I say that they’re negligent, per se, because they have a duty not to exceed the speed limit, that does not bring the case into qualified immunity,” Koopmans said.
He added that since the city officials had inspected the building, they had a duty to care for the residents.
“When they came in and said that this building needs to be vacated, they took control of the building, effectively, and they had a duty to act with care,” Koopmans said. “And the most simple thing to do is to tell people to leave.”
A spokesperson from the Iowa Judicial Branch said the court will likely issue a ruling within 90 days.
