City sues porch owner

Associated Press ^ | 7-2-03 | MAURA KELLY

[JustPiper]

The city filed a lawsuit today against the owners and managers of the apartment building where 13 people died in a weekend porch collapse, arguing that the porch was too big, built with the wrong materials and lacked the proper construction permit.

The city asked for hundreds of thousands of dollars in penalties.

Also today, hundreds of friends and family members attended funerals for several of the victims, remembering them as kind, caring and helpful.

According to the city's lawsuit, the porch jutted out 11 feet from the building -- 1 foot more than is allowed under city codes. It also was 81 square feet larger than the 150 square feet allowed, the city argued.

The complaint also alleged the three-story apartment building was illegally converted from five units to three.

The city asked for a court order requiring immediate replacement of the porch and is seeking up to $500 a day for each violation, which could total hundreds of thousands of dollars because the porch was built in 1998.

``Until there's a porch system, nobody can live there because there's no back exits and entrances,'' said Jennifer Hoyle, city Law Department spokeswoman.

The Law Department filed the complaint in Housing Court against management company LG Properties; Philip Pappas, president of LG Properties; Restoration Specialists LLC; Thomas Libby, mortgagee of the premises; and George Koutroumos, the contractor who built the porch.

Pappas is scheduled to return on Thursday from a trip to Canada, according to a woman who answered the phone Tuesday at LG Properties. LG Properties today referred calls to Mike Aufrecht, an attorney for Pappas, who would not talk to a reporter from The Associated Press. However, he had a receptionist who would not give her name read a brief statement.

``We have already given all information that we have to the press and we await Mr. Pappas' return for futher comment,'' the woman said.

The city is investigating whether the porch was overloaded when it collapsed about 12:30 a.m. Sunday during a party at the apartment building in Lincoln Park, an affluent neighborhood popular with young professionals.

About 50 people -- most in their early 20s -- were on a third-floor porch when it fell, causing a chain reaction that sent porches on the second and first floor plummeting to the basement.

Seven men and six women died, most of them crushed on the lower porches. At least 57 people were injured.

Officials issued a permit in 1998 to LG Properties to install furnaces, air conditioners and water heaters at the building -- but not a porch, the city said.

Police have said they do not plan to file criminal charges.

The Buildings Department is inspecting 42 other buildings owned or managed by Pappas and LG Properties, but the results were not available Wednesday, said Breelyn Pete, spokeswoman for the Buildings Department.

In Evansville, Ind., today, 25-year-old Margaret Haynie was recognized for her calm demeanor and bright smile. She had worked at Bank One for three years.

``She was always there to help people out,'' said her boss and mentor, Marsha Cruzan.

``She was known to pull all-nighters to get the work done and she loved doing it.'' In Winnetka, Phil Borhis remembered 19-year-old Shea Fitzgerald, a lineman at Northern Illinois University.

``We lost a great football player, but we also lost a good person and a good friend to the players,'' said Borhis, head athletic trainer at NIU.

Zack Domont, 20, of Glencoe, grew up with Fitzgerald.

``He was a gentle giant. His size looked overpowering but if you knew him he was a kind and caring guy,'' Domont said.

Claire Blumenthal described Muhammed Hameeduddin, 25, an actuary from Chicago, as delightful and considerate.

``He was brilliant. He was a delightful young man who was looking forward with great anticipation for doing for his family,'' she said.

[JustPiper]

Owner Breaks Silence On Porch Collapse
City Sues Owners, Managers

UPDATED: 6:48 p.m. CDT July 2, 2003

CHICAGO -- The landlord of the apartment building where 13 people died early Sunday morning after a third-floor porch collapsed broke his silence Wednesday.

NBC5's Mary Ann Ahern reported that the landlord, Philip Pappas, released a statement that expressed "heartbreak" at the tragedy. Pappas apologized for not speaking out sooner, saying he had been at Quetico Provinical Park of Ontario, and that he didn't know anything about the tragedy until search guides notified him. Once the guides did notify him, Pappas said he came home a day early.

"I would like to express my deepest sympathy to the families and friends of the deceased and those injured in this unimaginable tragedy," Pappas said in the statement. "My family and I are heartbroken over the loss and injury of so many fine young people."


Ahern also reported that the the city had previously issued citations warning that the porches that were previously attached to the building had to be fixed. In 1992, the city told the building's owners to either fix the porches or to take them down.

Pappas' statement comes the same day the city sued the owners and managers of the building, saying that they did not have the proper permits to construct a porch.

The city also alleged that the porch was too large and did not have the proper size support beams. The complaint also alleged the defendants illegally converted the three-story apartment building from five units to three.

"It was too big and not constructed properly," said Jennifer Hoyle, spokeswoman for the city's Law Department, which filed the complaint.

The city of Chicago filed a complaint in Housing Court against LG Properties; Philip Pappas, president of LG Properties; Restoration Specialists LLC; Thomas Libby, mortgagee of the premises; and George Koutroumos, the contractor who built the porch.

[Bluntpoint]

I went to a party once where the toliet seat pinched my ass.

What are the "code" requirements for such seats?

The welt eventually healed but now I am somewhat "retentive."

Do I have a case?

[RightWhale]

"who constructed the porch?"

It's in the court system now. Everything will be laboriously revealed in the course of time. The city has been waiting for something like this to illustrate the power of the permitting process.

[The Brush]

This has been all over the news.
Yesterday I heard that the porch was inspected in November and there were no problems, "suddenly" this porch was constructed totally wrong.
I'd be curious to learn how much it cost to be within code last November (besides 13 lives) and to find out who the inspector was who failed to notice that the five apartment building was converted to 3 apartments and that the porch was 1 foot wider and 85 sf. larger than allowed.

Seems to me as though Pappas can show up in court with paperwork verifing that his property passed inspection and file a counter-suit.
I'm not a lawyer but I've never met one who didn't pi$$ me off.

[spunkets]

""suddenly" this porch was constructed totally wrong."

There's big money involved now. This also stands to give a great boost to the city's ability to extract it in the future.

[LoneRangerMassachusetts]

Assumming the average person on the proch weighed 150 pounds then the porch was loaded to 50 people times 150 pounds per person divided by 231 feet leads to 32.5 pounds per square feet on the porch. Most northern states follow the BOCA code which would call for a porch to carry 60 pounds per square foot. The safety factor of about 4 for wood (for a perfectly built wooden structure) would make the breaking load at 4 times 60 or 240 pound per square foot. Clearly the porch was ineptly built as it collapsed at a load of about one-eight of its theoretical ultimate strength.

[JustPiper]

Thank you ;)

[JustPiper]

From local ABC

July 2, 2003 — City attorneys filed complaints against the owner and managers of 713 Wrightwood Avenue, where 13 died when a porch collapsed over the weekend. They claim the owner did not have proper permits for the porch, which was too big, and therefore, structurally unsound.
City officials have now done a complete turnaround in their position as to what caused the calamity. From the time the porch collapsed early Sunday morning-sending 13 people to their deaths-Chicago fire and building department officials said the cause was too many people and too much weight on the wooden decks and stairs. But the city's lawsuit filed today against the owner, the manager and the carpenter, claiming they are to blame for erecting an illegal, unsafe porch.

"The city's position is that the porch failed because the porch was constructed in violation of the building code," said Mara Georges, Chicago Corp. Counsel.

Regardless of how many people were crammed onto the porch structure at 713 Wrightwood Avenue last weekend, the city now claims in a lawsuit that the collapse was the fault of the building owner, Philip Pappas. Pappas, owner of L.G. Properties is currently wrapping up an annual canoeing expedition in Canada. Pappas' employees declined comment until he returns home Thursday.

The city's lawsuit against Pappas-- and those he hired to build the porch and run the building-- charges that the decks were too big and made of inadequate materials incapable of supporting legal weight limits. It also alleges that Pappas did not have proper permits to build the porch and that the building is now violating code. Pappas must pay hundreds of thousands in fines and erect a new porch before the units may be reoccupied.

"I believe that the cause of the deaths was the fact that the porch was constructed in violation of the law," said Georges. "I think you can trace it to that because if they would have gotten their permit, they would not have received a permit if they had attempted to build a porch in this condition."

But precisely what the condition was may be difficult to figure out because the city removed the porch within a day of the collapse. Crews piled up some of the wood on a South Side city lot and moved the critical pieces into a police garage on the West Side where city-hired experts have started to examine and reconstruct it.

"The city could have preserved it as a crime scene, gotten the necessary court involvement with an order to take it down," said Francis Patrick Murphy, Corboy and Demetrio law firm.

While police say there will be no criminal charges, Murphy said the area should have been cordoned off as a crime scene so that experts could try to figure out what really caused the deadly collapse. That is also the view of defense lawyers who expect to file lawsuits on behalf of victims.

"There was a dangerous situation created that in the estimation of the city needed to be cleared away and it was carefully cleared away the property was secured and it is currently in the possession of the police department," said Georges. "We have no culpability at all here, the city has absolutely no culpability."

The porch was built in 1998. The property has been inspected by the city annually most recently last November. But lawyers for the city say building inspectors look for obvious dangers-and wouldn't necessarily spot the design flaws and that led to Sunday's disaster. Also today, city emergency command officials tell ABC7 News that there were no 911 calls before the collapse from anyone who saw the overcrowding and was concerned about safety.

[LibertarianInExile]

Pappas will be litigated into bankruptcy in ten years. He'd better start selling his stuff and buying Mar-A-Lago now, because you can't fight city hall. Especially Daley's city hall.

Daley and his cronies are trying to pin the blame on the owner. Might be partially the owner's fault for building this thing, but to be realistic, if the city code was in place, and the code was found violated by city inspectors, and the owner was informed months ago, whose fault was it that the porch collapsed with people on it? Perhaps a combination of city officials being nice and not enforcing the law against someone who's probably a generous donor, and a landlord being a rational actor and rolling the dice.

I'll agree with the idea that we should be careful and the people on that porch make their own decisions, but how many people ask the owner before they go to a barbecue, "What's the load bearing capacity of your porch, or the porch upstairs, or the porch above that? Will those be exceeded this evening, do you think?"

I know I'd probably have been in the crowd that went inside if the top floor porches felt rickety, but sheesh, I can hardly pin blame on the folks on the bottom floor, who seem to me unlikely to have noticed any instability above.

[RileyD, nwJ]

Hmmmm ... with all the talk if legal action and suing companies and individuals what haven't we heard?

First note all those who died (from my read of the articles) were either on the 2nd floor deck or the 1st floor deck. Further there were no more that 10-15 individuals on each of the lower decks.

Next note there were 50-70 people (reports vary) on the 3rd floor deck and the entire range of those numbers would probably be outside the safety range for the deck.

Note the area for each individual on that deck was at best 3 square feet (1.5 ft x 2 ft). That's incredibly crowded. Try it in your living room or kitchen.

Then note that any kind of movement adds to the dynamic load in a significant way - especially if any of the movements are in unision.

Now with the information above ask yourself if the renter (and/or whoever was putting on this party) bears any responsible at all for the number of people permitted on the 3rd floor deck. Then ask yourself if all 50 (or more) of those on the deck also bear some responsibilty.

Everyone on the 3rd floor deck may be guilty of negligence to one degree or another not to mention the renter of the apartment. And if there was drinking going on as well, then it simply gets worse. I'm surprised this angle hasn't been developed yet.

Don't really know about the quality of the deck, but I'll bet a dollar to a donut it was built to handle a 'standard' load that was greatly exceeded. Could it have been built better? Sure, but where does it end. The user(s) are also expected to use and apply a modicum of common sense.

A sad day for all.

RileyD, nwJ

[JustPiper]

I can hardly pin blame on the folks on the bottom floor, who seem to me unlikely to have noticed any instability above.

Nor on the 2nd floor, many who felt uncomfortable left the porch and/or the party, they are the lucky ones, but I think death for a poor choice is rather severe. And many suggest that blaise attitude.

[LibertarianInExile]

Oh, but wait, the city DIDN'T place the building owner in violation until AFTER the accident...wonder why?

[JustPiper]

Everyone on the 3rd floor deck may be guilty of negligence to one degree or another not to mention the renter of the apartment. And if there was drinking going on as well, then it simply gets worse. I'm surprised this angle hasn't been developed yet.

Could be because they paid the ultimate price for their bad decisions?

[RileyD, nwJ]

JustPiper,

To the best of my knowledge the only ones who paid the ultimate price were on either the 1st or 2nd floor decks.

RileyD, nwJ

[prairie dog]

From what little I've seen of the back of the building in media reports, it looks most likely that the porch, deck, or balcony (different code requirements for each category, you just know the lawyers are going to have a field day over these terms) was not properly attached to the brick wall. If the perimeter joist against the building wall was only lag bolted into the brick or mortar, it could easily give way under such a load.

Of course the city goes into immediate CYA mode. Permit or no permit, they recently inspected the building and okayed it. Notice how quickly the porch remains were razed and removed before anyone other than the city could investigate.

[jocon307]

"The city asked for a court order requiring immediate replacement of the porch..."

Are they sure this is the very best idea?

"[T]he city nudged itself to the front of the payolla line for what is going to prove to be an extremely expensive porch."

They certainly did, didn't they Ollie?

"Everyone on the 3rd floor deck may be guilty of negligence to one degree or another not to mention the renter of the apartment...I'm surprised this angle hasn't been developed yet."
Nor will it be, because there is probably very few $$$ in those pockets.

I gotta say, I live in Hudson County, New Jersey, but I gotta take my pork-pie off to the corrupt Pols of Chi-town! You guys are the Masters!

[JustPiper]

Well this Daley town has done a total 380 on this one , but we can't help it we're outnumbered by liberals ya know.

[JustPiper]

360...listening to the radio, scanner, my son screeeeam ;)

[Cvengr]

Reads to me as though either the joists were run paralle with the structure instead of running the short span or perhaps ledgers carrying the load were insufficiently supported by the structure. Might also rest with the failure of one column, but whatever the cause, there is generally a substantial amount of flex in the structure with live loads to give all the occupants an outright scary clue to not overload it when the strength is approached within its last 20%, at least with wood structures. and steel generally yields before catastrophic failure.

The conversion from 5 to 3 units, if anything would have made the structure safer with a lower occupancy, so the city's clamouring about an illegal occupancy change to a lower occupancy merely displays their incompetance in evaluating the structure in general.

You hit the nail on the head regarding safety factors and the one foot over limit for inspection isn't the clincher professionally. if it had been a 20 ft to 30 ft span rather than an 8'-12' span I'd understand the codification concern.

I'd say the structural weakness was more obvious than is being described.

Maybe unfilled unreinforced CMU wall 3 stories tall?

[sam_paine]

Clearly the porch was ineptly built as it collapsed at a load of about one-eight of its theoretical ultimate strength.

That assumes it wasn't a material failure, or recent hidden damage (like a car bumper nicking a post) which cannot be blamed on the original construction or inspection.

Also, multiply your live load numbers by XXXX if they were "Babies with Back" and Hip-Hopping in unison.