He—may Allah have mercy on him—was asked:

A man lives in an endowed inn with an official responsible for its maintenance and repair. The resident informed this official that his dwelling was in danger of collapse, but the official kept putting him off. Then the official went up to the dwelling, inspected it himself, and stamped on it with his foot, saying, “This is not going to collapse, and you will suffer no harm from it.” He left it and went downstairs. After he had gone down, the dwelling collapsed upon the resident’s wife and children. Three died, and all his belongings were destroyed. Is the official liable for those who died, and must he compensate him for the belongings that were destroyed?

He answered:

This official, who had been notified but delayed having the structure dismantled, is liable for the losses caused by its collapse. Indeed, he would be liable even if he owned the premises, provided that there was reason to fear their collapse and he had been informed of this—even if the person informing him was not his tenant. This is the position of the great majority of scholars, including Abū Hanīfah, Mālik, Ahmad according to the well-known view attributed to him, a group of al-Shāfiʿī’s followers, and others. Some, however, require that the notification be made in the presence of witnesses, whereas most do not.

He was negligent in failing to dismantle and repair it, even if he thought it would not collapse. He should have had it inspected by people with expertise in construction. By failing to do so, he was negligent and liable for the losses caused by his negligence. This is all the more so given his statement to the tenant, “Live here if you wish, or do not live here if you wish,” for this constitutes wrongdoing on his part.