who is liable?

[hungrycat]

it is my belief that the elec.cntr.is responcible/liable for the installations of electrical. if an engineer requires something illegal,and i know it,i will refuse to follow him.who is wrong? me? if i know it is not legal and damage or death happens i know im going to court.

[bphgravity]

Everyone involved from the design professional to the end user and everyone in between holds some responsibility for their actions or lack of actions.

However, this is what the building plans review and inspection is for - to catch these descrepancies and request plan revisions or installation alterations.

[infinity]

If Joe Electrical Contractor installs a violation that was designed by someone else the inspector doesn't really care. It's the EC, who's name is on the permit that will have to remedy the problem. Now, who pays to correct the mistake is another issue.

[charlie b]

First, this question is not related in any way to instructors or to classrooms. So I am moving it to the Electrical Contracting topic area.

Secondly, speaking as an engineer, if I make an error and you discover it, I want you to tell me. But to address your specific question, if you build something that violates the code, something that I had designed incorrectly, and if an injury results, then we are both going to end up in court. So don't build it that way. Instead, let's talk about it. Perhaps you are mis-judging the situation, and my design might be correct. Perhaps I did make an error, and I need to reissue the design. But if you build it in way you want to or the way you think it should be done, without first consulting with me, then you would become fully responsible for whatever happens thereafter.

[acrwc10]

I have seen , in California, a "constrution defect lawsuit " where the owner of the house thought the floor was to "bouncy" this snow balled into the windows didn't exactly match with the tinting and on and on. The end came when the owner hired a company to come in and piece by piece take down "and document" every mistake or short comming they found.This started at the roof and went through every trade down to drilling holes 20' deep next to the piers and x-raying them to make sure the correct rebar size and spacing was maintained.When they were finished they suied eveyone even the painter. They bankrupted at least five people. In short if you know something is wrong you are liable if you install it . I have told home owners I will not turn a wall sconce over if the arrow on the inside says "up'' it goes up.Unless they can prove to me it is right I would be conservitive.

[hungrycat]

my problem with this contract is:believe it or not,the engineer wont talk to me.he will talk to the gc.what do they know about electrical?oh yea this is a million dollar job.

[tkb]

Most engineers put weasel clauses in their specs that require the installation to meet all codes.

I have run into designs that would not meet code and have let the engineers know through the RFI process. (request for information)

Instead for getting a change order for the additional cost to make the installation code compliant, they say that the EC owns it regardless of the the design drawings because of the weasel clause "meet all codes" in the specifications.

I have also seen clauses that say "if there is a discrepancy between the drawings and the specifications than the more expensive will be provided"

I guess this way the premodona engineers will never be wrong.

[don_resqcapt19]

Tim,
There are court cases that make the "weasel clause" invaild. It transfers some of the design to the electrcial contractor and unless the contractor has a PE on staff, he is not permitted to design.
Don

[hardworkingstiff]

Often it's the one with the best lawyer gets to pass the liability to the other party.

Another scenario is the one with the deepest pockets gets the liability. (That's why they hire the best lawyers).

[charlie tuna]

"liability" is the question. each case could be different in the court system. yes, there are clauses and words in the contracts that point in both directions and can be misguided and misinterpitated. i always believed in CYA communications in writing when advising a gc-engineer or architect. i have only gone to court two times in 25 years but this type of communication removed me of the "liability" of the issue!

i had one job that involved a major stock exchange company and the engineer did not include dedicated circuits to over a hundred computer work stations and other sensitive electronic equipment. i bid the job "as per plans and specifications" and got the job. i did oversize the raceways to include the dedicated circuits in my bid. at the pre job confrence i approched the engineer (privately) and explained the need for dedicated circuits. loudly and very unprofessionally - he spoke out and stated "i'll design it - you follow the plans and install it "as such"". i was upset - and did what i was told.

two years later, i was called to this jobsite for a meeting with the tenant and the same engineer. the tenant had called the meeting and had discovered, due to major data equipment problems, that they needed dedicated circuits that were not installed. i had my "as built" and "record" drawings with me. the engineer started the meeting explaining how "i" had screwed up and then rolled out a set of plans and showed the tenant his drawings and they showed dedicated circuits!!! he had changed the plans!!! i wanted to jump across the confrence table and choke this guy!!! then i rolled both the "record" set and "as built" sets out and asked if he remembered our pre construction meeting discussion? he denied it!!! the real kicker was --- on his drawings it was very obvious that someone had "hand drawn" the extra slashes on the raceways to indicate the needed dedicated neutrals. he then told the tenant he would need my plans to review the problem. i told him the only time he would see my plans again would be in court!!!

we ended up installing the neutrals by setting up enough extention cords each morning to allow normal tenant functions while we re-pulled through the oversized(thank goodness) raceways. this was a very large and old engineering firm --- about two years later the went belly up!!!

i have used many "speed memo" pads communicating with gc's,engineers and architects and they worked for me!!! they know the communication is documented and act on it..

[iwire]

I go with a very simple premise.

If I install it I am than liable for it.

[petersonra]

my problem with this contract is:believe it or not,the engineer wont talk to me.he will talk to the gc.what do they know about electrical?oh yea this is a million dollar job.

this is not an unusual situation. the engineer does not work for the EC. he ought not to be communicating directly with someone he does not have a contractual relationship with unless it has been approved.

Many GCs have been burned so many times by these communications that go around them that they just will not allow them anymore.

[charlie b]

Most engineers put weasel clauses in their specs that require the installation to meet all codes.
They are not “weasel clauses.” Engineers (and electricians also, by the way) have two duties. First and foremost is to safeguard the health and safety of the public. The second is to protect the interests of the party (usually the owner) who is paying for our services. We put these “weasel clauses” into specs in order to protect the owner and the public.

I have run into designs that would not meet code and have let the engineers know through the RFI process. (request for information)
That is the right thing to do. No matter how the contract is written, and no matter which party holds the contract with the EC, the owner will eventually be paying the bill. You owe it to the owner to pass on information that relates to code violations and potential cost overruns. Somewhere in the contract language there will be a process for reporting such information, and for requesting instructions on how to proceed.

I guess this way the premodona engineers will never be wrong.
Normally I will overlook grammar and (in this case) spelling errors. But if you are going to insult my sector of the electrical profession, then I would ask that you spell the words correctly. It’s “prima donna,” and it comes from the Italian for “first lady.” I would have preferred being called the “first gentleman,” but I do not know the Italian translation of that phrase.

[hardworkingstiff]

It’s “prima donna,” and it comes from the Italian for “first lady.” I would have preferred being called the “first gentleman,” but I do not know the Italian translation of that phrase.

LMAO!

(filler filler)

[acrwc10]

in general terms what is the questioned short comming?

[don_resqcapt19]

Charlie,
They are not “weasel clauses.” Engineers (and electricians also, by the way) have two duties. First and foremost is to safeguard the health and safety of the public. The second is to protect the interests of the party (usually the owner) who is paying for our services. We put these “weasel clauses” into specs in order to protect the owner and the public.
I don't see them that way...I see them as an attempt on the part of the design professional to pass his liability off to the electrical contractor.
Don

[charlie b]

Charlie, I don't see them that way...I see them as an attempt on the part of the design professional to pass his liability off to the electrical contractor. Don
I, on the other hand, see them as an attempt on the part of the design professional to prevent the installer from avoiding liability, in the event the installer builds something that violates the code. If I designed it wrong, then I'll take my lumps. But if I design it wrong and the installer builds it in that wrong way, then the installer deserves a share of the lumps. I don't want the installer to get by with saying, "well, I knew it was wrong, but I just did what I was told to do, so it's not my fault, and you must pay me extra now to fix it." It is in this manner that the interests of both the owner and the public are being served.

[infinity]

Charlie,

I don't see them that way...I see them as an attempt on the part of the design professional to pass his liability off to the electrical contractor.
Don
[/font]


I would agree that in some instances this is the case. For example an engineer does a load calculation for a small building, the EC bids the job and installs it per the plans. Now somewhere down the road it's discovered that the engineer made an error. Certainly a one sentence clause shouldn't indemnify the engineer of any responsibility for the error. It's not the EC's responsibility to check every aspect of the design. If so why would he need an engineer in the first place?

[don_resqcapt19]

Charlie,
But if I design it wrong and the installer builds it in that wrong way, then the installer deserves a share of the lumps. I don't want the installer to get by with saying, "well, I knew it was wrong, but I just did what I was told to do, so it's not my fault, and you must pay me extra now to fix it."
How is the electrician expected to catch the mistakes of the design professional...if he/she didn't know how to do it right, there is no reason to expect the electrical contractor to know. If you design it wrong and I don't catch it, that is your problem not mine and I will get an extra to fix it...if not I'll see you in court.
Don

[coulter]

How is the electrician expected to catch the mistakes of the design professional...
I'm actually lined up with charlie on this one. (Don't panic charlie!! It's okay :)

Don -
Some electricians can and do, and have for me. And I like that.

If you design it wrong and I don't catch it, that is your problem not mine ... ...if not I'll see you in court.
If an EC exibited an attitude like that, why would I think there is any impetus for him to catch any errors? Oh I know, it's the weasel words that make for a double hanging if he can't be bothered to say something. And with the weasel words, it won't be me, it will be the owner that has him dragged into court.

So, I would say it is exactly the things you said that are the reason the weasel words get put in the contracts.

carl

[sparkie001]

How is the electrician expected to catch the mistakes of the design professional...if he/she didn't know how to do it right, there is no reason to expect the electrical contractor to know.

Mistakes can result of purely human error, not just from not knowing how to design something. If I get interrupted by a phone call etc. or just having a bad day, and make a stupid mistake, I would hope the EC could and would catch it and RFI me and not build it wrong. It's called TEAMWORK!

[don_resqcapt19]

There is nothing that can be placed in a contract that can legally make the EC responsible for design errors. The design is the responsibility of the PE and any attempt to make it the responsibility of the EC is telling the EC that he has to design the system in violation of the engineering license laws. If I find a problem I will point it out, but I will not fix it without compensation. When we get to court my lawyer will point out the education and PE license of the engineer and ask the jury “who should know how to do this, the professional engineer or the electrician?
Don

[charlie b]

Don, I don’t think I am making my point clear to you, and therefore I don’t know whether we have a fundamental disagreement in principle.

First, I do not “expect” the EC to catch my errors (presuming such things happen).

Secondly, I do not issue a design with the belief that I need not worry about errors. In other words, I do not rely on those “weasel clauses” to force the blame away from myself and onto the EC.

Finally, if a design error results in a need for changes, I believe that the EC should be paid for the additional costs.

For the sake of clarifying my viewpoint, let’s postulate that I issue a design that includes #14 wire on 20 amp branch circuits, and that I not notice the code violation before the prints get published. Let’s talk about the various ways an EC might act. In all cases, let’s presume that it is the Inspector who catches the error. But keep in mind that in all cases, no action on the part of the EC would excuse my own error.

Case 1: The EC might not notice the code violation, and might build it as-designed. I would call this a matter of the EC not living up to the level of competence promised by the EC license.

Case 2: The EC might notice the code violation, but might build it as-designed anyway, without saying anything about it to anyone, thinking that the engineer must know what is right. I would call this a violation of public trust, in that it would be a failure to protect the safety of the public.

Case 3: The EC might notice the code violation, might recognize an opportunity to get some extra money, might build it as-designed, wait for the Inspector to red tag the installation, and submit a change order to replace the wire. I would call this a violation of the owner’s trust.

I believe that in all three of these cases, the EC should be made to replace the wire at no cost to the owner. This is the very reason for the “weasel clauses.”

Case 4: The EC might notice the code violation, might inform the owner or the engineer (via an RFI or other means) before the installation begins, and might be told to just do what the drawings say to do. In this case, I believe the EC should be paid the extra money needed to replace the wire.

Do you agree or disagree with my assessment of these four cases?

[charlie tuna]

now lets discuss what usually happens when a design problem arrises on a typical job?? it has been my expirience when a design problem occurs the owner and the engineer have a meeting to identify the problem and discuss the cause. this is were it gets my blood boiling!!! the owner is usually unqualified to understand the actual situation of the design problem and only a few times have i worked with a architect/engineer that will "step up to the plate" and admit his error. i know we have lost some good service accounts being blamed for design errors. and almost everytime they (owner-gc-engineer) expect the changes to be made at "no charge"! at first, i tried to work with the owner and architect --- but after a while i realized i was being blamed anyhow --- and i was acknowledging my guilt by doing the re-work and not charging them... i then became "hard core" and charged them for changes. some of the first "free-bees" added up into some large amounts of money! i thought, "well we'll make it up on job referals from the engineer" -- never happened!!! we always worked with our clients to a point -- one big problem today is on remodel work, the engineer does not start out with accurate information on the site. he may show "existing circuits" that are not there or used for another tenant or the locations of equipment is wrong. adding a few breakers is one thing --- setting a new panel is another.

fourty years ago we were working on a major project at an airport. the electrical engineer visited the site every week. he was an older guy and very knowlegable! one day we were in a jet engine overhaul shop and he was there geting information off of existing equipment. he got to talking to us and asked us to follow him to the compressor room of the overhaul shop. he turned on the lights and showed us a plaque on the wall. it stated "this room donated for by Hammond Engineering Company". he was the owner and his name was bob hammond! he explained that he left the compressor room out of the design by mistake.

the biggest issue we had was an engineer designed an emergency smoke evacuation system in a building that we serviced and had many tenant clients. the system worked "on paper" and was very expensive to install since it required over 36 reversing starters. due to the building's structural design, it would leak smoke to other floors causing the emergency system to overload and fail during a fire!!! he was the building's record engineer and was dealing with a new owner and affraid he would loose the account. we figured a way to solve the overload problem but it requied $26,000. in materials. the engineer we dealt with was a russian guy and he said go ahead and they would go to the owner and get a change order. the city required the smoke system operational before any "certificate of occupencies" were issued. three months after we finished the work -- no change order was issued. i had a meeting with this engineer --- he then started telling me "we can send you alot of work"! i was not interested in more work --- that was not the deal. now, i'm dealing with the owner and have to explain that i'm going to place a lean on his building. we ended up going to court --- the judge asked the owner of the engineering firm "do you have errors and admission insurance?", he answered "yes".. the judge then told him to pay me. we lost about $5,000. of it to our attorney and the account. the engineering firm also lost the building account when my attorney exposed the fact that the russian engineer was not licensed to approve anything in the state.... if the owner of the engineering company had admitted his mistake in the first place we would both be doing business as usual for the building!!!

like everything else --- things change with time --- there was a time you did things on a handshake --- not today! and thats why we have all the wordage and gobbilyguke in construction contracts

[petersonra]

I see this as just a couple of cases.

1. The EC thinks there is a design error. It is really a design decision. I get that from electricians now and then. They all think they are smarter than me. A few probably are. Most of the time these are things the guys are used to doing in a certain way but are not code issues.

2. The EC thinks there is a design error. It really is a design error.

3. No one notices and it gets built wrong.

4. Someone notices something wrong and does not tell.

Case 1. Build it to print, or get the engineer to change his mind.

Case 2 and 3. Engineer is responsible.

Case 4. "Someone" is morally responsible, but maybe not legally.

Bottom line - neither side should be afraid to talk to each other about what is going on. It is not about who is wrong or right. It is about getting the job done correctly.

[Lady Engineer]

[QUOTE=tkb]Most engineers put weasel clauses in their specs that require the installation to meet all codes.
QUOTE]

You know why we do that (right or wrong), because if we don't at least state those things...alot of the time, the EC will take any little discrepansy and charge us through the nose, as if they never make a mistake. Or they just try to find some way to get an "extra", because they under bidded the job hoping to make the money on change orders. It's a two sided highway...It's not fair on either part. :(


Lady :)

[don_resqcapt19]

Charlie B.
I fully agree with everything you said in your last post. Here is more of the type of case that I am thinking about. The designer for a grocery store left out the power feed to the rooftop condensers for the refrigeration system and expected us as the electrical contractor to know that feeder was needed and to have included it in our bid. We did not catch it at bid time and neither did any of the other bidders. We refused to provide it without compensation for the work. We did get paid, but it cost the owner about 6 weeks delay in opening his store.
Don

[kingpb]

I am an engineer, I do not make mistakes! OK, I feel better, all the problems are someone elses. See how easy that was.;) Now for reality.....

Everyone makes mistakes, engineers and EC's. So, if an EC has an issue with any portion of the design, he is obligated to bring it to the attention of the person he has his Contract with, which is usually the GC. The GC will in turn get the parties invovled that need to be invovled. If the design includes perceived Code violations, the EC should not build it that way. Charlieb is very accurate in his examples. An RFI should be issued, and clarification should be provided prior to commencement of work. Our documents are quite clear, that if you start work on something that you have a question about, prior to getting clarification, you own it, or at least the portion you started.

My advice, don't do anything on a handshake or promise. This is the age of sue happy individuals. EC's should question anything that doesn't meet code, they don't understand, or thinks will cause a conflict. Be professional in your approach, don't point fingers, state the facts and be able to back-up and justify your contention. Get the AHJ involved if need be to support your position. One last thing, DON'T TAKE DIRECTION FROM ANYONE YOU DON'T HAVE A CONTRACT WITH! Unless of course you like working for free.....

[kingpb]

Charlie B.
I fully agree with everything you said in your last post. Here is more of the type of case that I am thinking about. The designer for a grocery store left out the power feed to the rooftop condensers for the refrigeration system and expected us as the electrical contractor to know that feeder was needed and to have included it in our bid. We did not catch it at bid time and neither did any of the other bidders. We refused to provide it without compensation for the work. We did get paid, but it cost the owner about 6 weeks delay in opening his store.
Don

On these types of issues, make sure you always go back to the latest revision of the Contract Documents. Not that it was in this case, but it could be that electrical requirements are buried in specifcation sections that are not traditionally electrical. e.g. mechanical.

EC's need to remember that the GC is the overall Contract holder with the Owner, and he is responsible for the entire project. In this case, say the mechanical spec said, provide feeder to unit per code. Now, maybe the GC didn't give you that section. Who's fault is it? in this case the GC. One of the crucial mistakes I commonly see is that the GC will give the subs only the documents he thinks they need, instead of a whole set.

Make sure you get a full copy of ALL the documents, and make sure your Contract with the GC says he is responsible for giving you a copy of all revisions, change orders, etc. even if they don't apply.

Also, don't think that only Division 16 applies, all sections apply. I've seen that argument be lost on many occasion. BTW: the new CSI numbering splits electrical up pretty poorly. Div 16 doens't apply to electrical anymore, so you may want to visit the eye doctor, cause your going to be doing a lot more reading.

[don_resqcapt19]

The other thing that is becomming more common is major chages being made between the "issued for bid" documents and the "issued for construction documents" with no clouding or other indication of the changes. In my mind there is only one reason for this...an attempt to trick the contractor into providing work that was not included in the bid. One firm told us that if the clouded all of the changes between the "bid" and "build" sets that we would not be able to read the documents!!
Don

[kingpb]

Don,

Your right, and IMO that is a cheap way to try and get something for nothing. It forces the EC to keep track of the differences.

If forced to do this, I would essentially rebid the job (after you have Contract), and request a change order up front, prior to ever starting.

The typical procedure promoted by Architects, is that the drawings have a revision of A, B, C, etc up until it goes for construction. Then the revision goes to "0" For Construction. Consequently any bubbles, or backcircles are removed for the "For Construction" set.

You need to discuss with GC ahead of time, as to how he is going to handle the changes between the two sets, because yes, they can be very extensive.

[don_resqcapt19]

King,
If forced to do this, I would essentially rebid the job (after you have Contract), and request a change order up front, prior to ever starting.
We have done that, and in one case they even paid us to "rebid" the job because of the extensive changes. They really pay us everytime as the rebid costs are included in the change order price, but that one time they had us bill the rebid at our T&M rates. Some of these jobs take hundreds of manhours to bid and to expect that the contractor has to redo that to protect himself is unreasonable, at least in my opinion.
Don

[charlie tuna]

the issue of bidding off a complete set of plans is very important! this started happening about fifteen years ago. the gc doesn't realize (nor care) that the electrical contractor needs a full set of plans to properly price out a job. when i asked about the balance of the plans they would say "you can come by the office and look the other drawings over". i refuse to bid with gc's who couldn't provide full sets of plans. how can you check ceiling heigths and duct runs etc.???

[hungrycat]

i forgot to mention one thing,the engineer refuses to talk to me.he is aware of his mistakes and ignores them.i also have sent 5 letters thru channels identifying some of these problems.2 years later,still no answer.i corrected the mistakes myself.and they all passed inspection.was i wrong?

[kingpb]

The engineer, probably is a sub to the Architect, and the Architect has the contract with the Owner. The GC also has the contract with the Owner, and you are a sub to the GC. Some Architects do not like the engineer talking directly to the Owner, let alone the sub of the GC. Doesn't mean it's the best appraoch but that's the reality of it.

Making the changes to meet Code was the right thing to do, but I wouldn't expect to get paid for any of the changes, unless the GC authorized you to do it.

Even if you submitted a change order to the GC, if he doesn't authorize it, then you won't get paid, therefore the work should not be done. The issue would then need to be resolved prior to finishining the project. Even if 100 engineers agree with you, it doesn't matter. You have to remember who you work for!

It sounds like the GC got what he wanted (a finsihed job with no delays), The Owner paid no extras, and the Architect didn't have to authorize design changes. What did you get?

[vsullivan]

Gentlemen:

When you discuss "Who is liable" you are entering the field of law and you should know that only lawyers licensed in the state may give legal advice. Your conversations might be interpreted by some as giving legal advice or rendering legal opinions. You may want to be more cautious in the way you express yourselves.

Vernon Sullivan, J.D.

[infinity]

Gentlemen:

When you discuss "Who is liable" you are entering the field of law and you should know that only lawyers licensed in the state may give legal advice. Your conversations might be interpreted by some as giving legal advice or rendering legal opinions. You may want to be more cautious in the way you express yourselves.

Vernon Sullivan, J.D.


This is what the owner of this site said about being liable:


Rules, Policies, and Disclaimers

No information gathered from this web site shall be treated as being the opinion of an 'expert witness, and you do not have anyone's permission to present such information as evidence in any type of legal dispute.

[kingpb]

Gentlemen:

When you discuss "Who is liable" you are entering the field of law and you should know that only lawyers licensed in the state may give legal advice. Your conversations might be interpreted by some as giving legal advice or rendering legal opinions. You may want to be more cautious in the way you express yourselves.

Vernon Sullivan, J.D.

Give me a break! The information I have read herein is based on experiences that we have all had, and things we have learned. They could in no way be construed as giving legal advice.

If someone does interpret them that way, well, they need to go find a different ambulance to chase.

So, since your making bold statements, please itemize each and every instance that you are referring too, so we may have a chance to refute you. Otherwise your statement has no basis.

[infinity]

King, I agree with you but are you sure that you want to drop the gloves with a lawyer?

Vernon Sullivan, J.D.

[gndrod]

ciao Charlie,
e primo signore

[kingpb]

In the infamous words of Ronald Reagan, " Well, I don't recall ".

[ptonsparky]

Won a bid on small municipal well. Contract was typical in that Engineer was not wrong. Fixtures specd were no longer available and had not been for several years. After many alternates and drawings were passed through the chain of command one was finally accepted. I had wasted enough time on that so I ignored another obvious in the plans. No control was specified and I just figured someone else was responsible. Turned out to be a nice extra. Two years later I bid another almost identical project from same engineer. Control was now included in the specs but the same fixture was still included. Most people only change when it cost them money or pain.

[sparkie001]

Fixtures specd were no longer available and had not been for several years. After many alternates and drawings were passed through the chain of command one was finally accepted. I had wasted enough time on that so I ignored another obvious in the plans.

Why didn't you just RFI the error and let the engineer spend the time picking another fixture?

[ptonsparky]

Why didn't you just RFI the error and let the engineer spend the time picking another fixture?

Inexperience

[sparkie001]

I feel your pain. Sorry to hear about the rough road. For the record, we are not all that way :)

I make my engineers give me cut sheets on the fixtures for each project that I check and sign, so I can verify that the fixture is available (or at least still in the catalog) and that they have the catalog number as correct as possible.