Quantcast

PENNSYLVANIA RECORD

Monday, May 6, 2024

City of Philadelphia wants to dismiss federal suit over 2022 fatal apartment house fire

Federal Court
Shutterstock 133089674

Philadelphia City Hall | Pennsylvania Business Daily

PHILADELPHIA – The City of Philadelphia is seeking to dismiss a federal lawsuit spawning from a fatal apartment house fire in Philadelphia, which took place in January 2022 and caused the deaths of 12 people, for failure to state claims upon which relief could be granted.

The families of Quinsha White, Rosalee McDonald, Destiny McDonald, Quintien Tate-McDonald, Janiyah Roberts, Natasha Wayne, Shaniece Wayne, Virginia Thomas, Tiffany Robinson, Taniesha Robinson, DeKwan Robinson and J’Kwan Robinson first filed suit on Jan. 4 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania versus the Philadelphia Housing Authority, the Philadelphia Department of Human Services and a dozen separate officials from those organizations.

The lawsuit claimed that the PHA and DHS collectively violated the victims’ constitutional right to health and safety, due to unsafe conditions at the rowhouse that was destroyed by fire two years ago.

“Over the past year through the process of investigation and discovery we have uncovered facts giving rise to not only negligence claims but also civil rights violations which we now will pursue in this additional lawsuit in federal court to obtain full justice for the tragic losses of life in this avoidable tragedy,” said Thomas R. Kline of Kline & Specter, PC, who represents the families of eight victims among the 12 people who perished in the building owned by PHA.

The plaintiffs claimed that PHA was responsible for the fire and deaths because it knew its four-bedroom apartment presented a safety hazard, due to being overcrowded with 14 residents and that the building failed to comply with all codes and regulations.

Such regulations that the property allegedly violated were that it lacked a fire escape, fire extinguishers, hard-wired and tamper-proof smoke or carbon monoxide detectors, an early detection system or a working fire suppression system.

The instant federal action alleged that PHA not only allowed the overcrowding, but that PHA maintenance workers removed the inoperable smoke detectors and said they would return to replace them.

However, the suit said, the PHA workers then falsified their own documents to indicate that smoke detectors were working – when if had they correctly noted that the smoke detectors were inoperable, PHA’s own policies would have required they be replaced within 24 hours. The suit adds that it believes DHS also violated the victims’ rights by promising to provide working smoke detectors when it recognized they were inoperable, yet did not keep its promise.

The tragic incident began when a child used a Techno Torch lighter to set fire to a Christmas tree on the second floor, trapping 13 people on the second and third floors.

In reference to the fatal fire and its aftermath, PHA Executive Vice-President Nichole L. Tillman previously offered the following statement.

“Since the tragic fire [in 2022], PHA has worked diligently to support the impacted families in ensuring that the surviving family members were supported and rehoused. PHA also partnered closely with our residents on the importance of fire safety and preventing fires at our developments. We recognize that education and partnership with our residents are key,” Tillman said.

“Accordingly, PHA has actively engaged with the Resident Advisory Board (RAB) leaders and residents to educate, remind and reinforce the importance of fire safety and the critical role residents play in ensuring safety. This included: Meetings, fire safety literature and fire drills as well encouraging residents to have in place an emergency safety plan for their families. Safety of our residents remains paramount for all of us at PHA and we will continue to collaborate with our residents, who we are privileged to serve, to educated and inform them about fire safety and prevention.”

UPDATE

After an amended complaint was brought on Feb. 1, the City of Philadelphia motioned to dismiss it two weeks later on Feb. 15, arguing that the plaintiffs’ invoking a state-created danger theory of substantive due process liability was incorrect and improperly pled.

“While plaintiffs’ loss is undoubtedly tragic, the alleged facts about the City defendants do not amount to a violation of the Constitution, which generally prohibits abusive, arbitrary exercises of state power that harm individuals – not failures to provide protection from private harms such as a fire. Plaintiffs’ invocation of the state-created danger theory of substantive due process in order to avoid this general rule fails for two separate and independent reasons. First, the City defendants in no way restrained the decedents’ ability to protect themselves by replacing their own smoke detectors. Defendant Fulton, at most for plaintiffs, merely assured the decedents she would replace the smoke detectors and then neglected to do so. And under controlling Third Circuit precedent, such conduct does not constitute an actionable affirmative act amounting to a restraint of liberty,” the dismissal motion stated, in part.

“Second, even if it constituted an actionable affirmative act, defendant Fulton’s conduct was not done with the requisite intent – a level of culpability that shocks the conscience. Instead, it was, at most, merely negligent. Negligent conduct does not give rise to a substantive due process violation. For these two reasons, plaintiffs’ claims against the City defendants – both the individual state-created danger claim against defendant Fulton, and the derivative municipal liability claim against the City premised on the same alleged state-created danger – fail. Separately, but for the same reason, plaintiffs’ claim against defendant Fulton is barred by qualified immunity.”

The plaintiffs are represented by Thomas R. Kline, Aaron Dunbar, Sherrell Dandy, and Frank Mangiaracina of Kline & Specter, and additionally c/o Jordan Strokovsky of Strokovsky, LLC and Kevin Mincey of Mincey Fitzpatrick Ross, all in Philadelphia.

Defendant City of Philadelphia is represented by Adam Ross Zurbriggen of the City of Philadelphia Law Department’s Civil Rights Unit.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:24-cv-00057

From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com

More News