B. Prentice

The moving municipality sought summary judgment dismissing a negligence claim arising from the collapse of a common wall after a major fire destroyed the plaintiff’s building.

The motion turned on whether the municipality, having inspected the fire-damaged building, arguably owed a duty to inspect the adjoining property for fire damage and safety risks, notwithstanding statutory protection for acts or omissions of a registered code agency.

The court held that the evidentiary record, including the municipality’s expert report and the circumstances of the fire, left genuine issues requiring a trial on potential municipal liability for failing to inspect the adjoining property.

Summary judgment was refused and the responding party received partial indemnity costs.

The defendants appealed an interlocutory order of a Master refusing to substitute a different representative for examination for discovery of a corporate defendant under Rule 31.03(2)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The moving parties sought to replace the individual selected by the plaintiff with a different representative who was also a named defendant.

Applying the deferential standard of review for appeals from discretionary decisions of a Master, the court found that the Master correctly articulated the governing legal principles and reasonably exercised his discretion.

The court found no error in the Master’s analysis concerning the proposed substitution or the examination of the proposed representative in multiple capacities.

The appeal was dismissed and costs were fixed against the defendants.