Another death

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Another death

Roger I never said they didn't do there job,i just said they don't have enough time to inspect each and every item.
As to OSHA they don't tell us we have to hot check before we call for final,if done it is on our own undertaking.Should we elect to do so we can wait till power is turned on(not a smart move).
Tax dollars do not pay for inspections here,they are from permit fees.
If inspectors were to be held liable for damages or criminal charges then very few would take the job.The idea behind inspections is to get EC to follow nec rules.I don't believe they are certifying you have a code compliant home,free of any defects in wiring.While our system may not be the best ,it is a lot better than some of the places mentioned on this board that don't even inspect anything.
 
Re: Another death

Jim,
I don't believe they are certifying you have a code compliant home
Click to expand...
what is a C.O. (certificate of ocupancy) then, and what are they doing?

I know they are human and will make mistakes, but you make it sound as though they are collecting a pay check and shouldn't be held accountable in any situation. This means if they wanted to just drive by and throw a final out the car window without inspecting the premisis they could, and you would think they should be clear of any actions if someone or some property is lost.

They or the agency they work for are insured for mistakes, but for criminal acts such as turning their heads to violations or for not inspecting to the best of their ability, they should be charged and prosecuted. I think this is the point of the original thread.

Roger
 
Re: Another death

Roger ,yes C.O. = certificate of ocupancy and that does not = certified code compliance, it only means that they have taken reasonable responsibility in inspecting work.
Your reading me wrong if you think im saying they have no responsibility.
I fully support the value of inspectors.
Now if all the inspector did was go to job site and sign his name on the card then he should be fired.
Should he be handed 25 jobs for that day then it is ovious he will have to be fast and not be able to spend much time per job as he might like to.Should he see a violation and not tag it then he is at fault.
Just how would you suggest he inspect everything in even as much time as an hour per house (and yes in some small cities we do get 1 or 2 hour inspections).Down here it is common to have 50 or more cans in a house,some as high as 17 feet.Are you suggesting he inspects each and every one ?
They look at a box or 2 and see if we spliced and grounded properly,now if say he sees no wire nut on a ground he will look at several more,if that was the only one and the electrician is there,most likely he will just tell him he missed one.If no one is there they have no option but to tag the job.Does it mean that because the 3 or 4 he looked at were done right that they all are ?Not hardly.Would you care to be given an hour to inspect a house and then take full responsibility to pay or fix anything that was wrong that you missed ?

Yes this thread is going off track.
How much liability in the original post do you feel should fall on the inspectors ?
Were they doing the job they were paid for?
Now if after the investigation we find that they just walked thru and had a doughnut with coffee ,instead of really looking things over then yes they should do time.But if they simply missed something then maybe firing is in order.
 
Re: Another death

Here we set the service when the contractor install's the wall for it. A few years ago the power company started charging a $500 deposit for hooking up temp pole's so they said that why not just install the service early. The inspector's went with it so that's how we now do it now. We have a service inspection and the POCO will hook it up.
Many of them has to have a small roof over them to keep rain out or we drape plastic over them. but many are installed before much of the house is built. As far as what jim is saying the Inspectors are doing down there in south west Florida I can say it wasn't that way when I was down there in Fort Myers working for B&R electric in "1978" on ponsetta RD. We were doing the 10 story condo's on the north shore of old 41 and they had inspectors there on the site. they would Gig us all the time. I did a school down in Napels at Golden Gate and again as we got done with one section the inspectors would come in and release that section for rough in, while we would move on to the next section. But that was a long time ago.

[ January 24, 2004, 01:03 PM: Message edited by: hurk27 ]
 
Re: Another death

What is the point of a CO if not to certify the building is code compliant and ready for occupancy?

At least here in New England you can not get a CO until all inspectors have signed off on final inspections.

Not one of these inspectors will sign of on the final until the building is code compliant.

If they are aware of any issues that remain they will not sign off.

That being the case once the CO is issued that is the insurance that the building complies with all codes.

In this case we are talking about someone has died, enough evidence has been presented to indite and as has been noted the amount of evidence to be indited is much less than for a conviction.

That is what court is for, once in court it may very well come out that these inspectors did all that they could be expected to do and charges will be dropped.

Or it will come out that these inspectors went to the fair grounds grabbed a few free rides, sausages, drinks and did not look at the ride that caused the death.

If that is the case they should be jailed for not doing their job resulting in a death.

I spent five years working in a park inspecting rides for mechanical and electrical defects after each inspection I signed my name to a sheet that listed what I had inspected.

If someone was injured on one of these rides I fully expected to be in civil court at the least and possibly face charges.

Bob
 
Re: Another death

A C O is indeed a paper saying you passed all inspections and it is BELIEVED to be code compliant(or they would not issue it).It does require every required inspection to pass.Would welcome to see any paper saying they certify it.That would be taking liability.

As to the idea of turning on a panel as soon as we had a wall up,Naples did permit this back in about 1997 for a short time.It was a liability to the EC,GC,and the owner of the property as well as the county for permitting it.
While it saved some money and time,the risk of someone getting hurt was far to great.
Allowing something like this could easily end up with a owner builder not getting under roof for a year or more.They indeed use plastic to cover indoor panels (UL listed plastic).This was lending itself to electricians landing wires in live panels.On more than one of these houses i would return to do a trim and find my live panel without a cover.Drywall people would remove them so they could board around them.So here sits a live panel open to kids in the hood and workers.This system was often mis used by people moving into the house without a CO.This practice may still be going on down there.Think what all might happen on a construction site.You saved $500 and we have someone dead.What does OSHA say about this ?
As to large commercial buildings i am not involved in them so will not comment there.
Have been involved on some rather large storage buildings ,and strip malls and we did set T poles

Like i have said rules change from place to place.
 
Re: Another death

So for electrical work you have rough-in inspection then final inspection and then C.O. inspection? is C.O. done by an electrical or what inspector? :)
 
Re: Another death

Ace, the C.O. is issued when all parties have signed off on "code compliance". This would include but not be restricted to Electrical, Plumbing, Mechanical, Building, Fire Marshal etc...

If you read Jim's statement to the effect that inspectors aren't certifying a code complying installation, then we would have to wonder why a red tag has a code violation directly or indirectly implied.


Roger
 
Re: Another death

Roger a red tag says you have a specific violation.There for you must correct it.
A CO means you have passed all inspections and are free of any known violations.In reality i have never seen a CO on paper.What happens is after passing all inspections the county calls the poco to release the hold to turn on power.This is the system.Without the county saying its ok you will not get turned on.Why would any county or town take the liability of saying anything more than you have passed your inspection ?If they certify it is perfect and someone gets electrocuted because something was done wrong then they are sued.Liability remains on the EC and his insurance will pay up to its limit.Chances are if EC ever makes a claim he will not be able to afford insurance and is out of business.If you can get a copy of a CO from your local AHJ and post it here.
 
Re: Another death

Jim maybe Ryan can jump in and explain the sovereignty that inspectors are granted against lawsuits.

This does not mean they can not be sued I believe it means they can only be sued for serious errors.

You are right CO or not the EC is on the hook for work he has done as they should be.

We would not get a CO before power was on, if the power it is not on the building is not ready for occupancy.
 
Re: Another death

Wish Ryan would tell us where he stands.I hardly think he would risk jail time because he let something slip passed him.Now if he was letting things slide for friends or just flat out not inspecting then he deserves criminal charges.Some how i don't think Ryan is that type of man.
We kinda view it as unless we have a CO power should not be turned on.Without power who will move in ?

[ January 24, 2004, 06:20 PM: Message edited by: jimwalker ]
 
Re: Another death

Jim I think we all are at risk for jail time if we make a serious error in judgment that results in a serious injury or death.
 
Re: Another death

You edited so I have to respond to myself. :D

Where is the protection for the home buyer?

Here without the OC the building can not be sold or the sale finalized, and the GC is on the hook to finish it.

If the OC is granted before the power is on what prevents the developer from selling the house without power and walking away sticking the buyer with a unlivable house.
 
Re: Another death

To a degree yes Bob.If i knowingly wire something wrong to save time or money and it causes injury or death then i should face charges.Usually they just push for the money,and that falls on the EC .
Ever notice almost all electrical companies incorporate ? Face it if you hire help sooner or later they get in trouble,or should i say get the company in trouble.Property can be replaced.If i did something wrong and it killed a kid i think i would hang up my belt.
Bob to your second post---- NOT A DAM THING.
Would say few will close untillthey see the lights on.This is not hard they just call poco and have them turn service on in there name.Keep in mind the AC man can't finish till we have power.There protection is mostly depending on our license.Should the GC go out of buisness they are stuck with what they bought.

[ January 24, 2004, 06:58 PM: Message edited by: jimwalker ]
 
Re: Another death

Jim, are you thinking about or have you applied for an inspectors job?

Besides sucking up to the inspectors in Tampa or here, I just don't get your adamant defense of incompetent people.

If an inspector is deceived by an EC that is a different story, and as Bob points out, this will be decided in the court room

Room
 
Re: Another death

Before this edit, this was a duplicate post of the above. Sorry! :eek:

Roger

[ January 24, 2004, 08:01 PM: Message edited by: roger ]
 
Re: Another death

Jim
I have taken two recent trips to Florida and I see a lot of building taking place. If I were to listen to your posts I would think everyone is a criminal and trying to break the law - from the intruding homeowners to the theiving ECs, and GCs to the fraudulent inspectors, those no good POCO people, to the ignorant apprentices. How about some positive statements? There must be something happening right down there.

Pierre
 
Re: Another death

Pierre ,on your next trip try something like applying for a job and visiting a few constuction sites for homes.As to poco ask the local AHJ about when they turn power on.You have heard others say the same thing about poco reaction to you billing them.All i say in my post are what i see happening.Just where in FL did you go ? And don't change my wording.I didn't call anyone a thief or criminal,those are your words not mine

[ January 25, 2004, 08:57 AM: Message edited by: jimwalker ]
 
Re: Another death

Good morning guys.

Disclaimer: I am not an attorney, and I am not offering legal advice. If you need legal advice, please consult an attorney.

Bob: You were asking about the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Basically, as an employee of the government, it is very difficult to sue me. With rare, rare exception, I cannot be held personally liable for a tort (wrongdoing). The city could be held liable. The two most common accusations against an inspector are: 1) negligent malfeasence, and 2) malicous prosecution. Both are very difficult to prove in the court of law.

Negligent malfeasance is just what it sounds like. By definition, I have to allow something to happen that isn't compliant with the intent of causing a hardship. One of the few ways that this could be proven in the court of law is by my writing something on a report (evidence that I know a violation exists), and then not requiring it to be fixed. Even then, you would have to prove that I intended to create a hardship.

The other is malicous prosecution, which often times may include assault. Contrary to popular belief, assualt does not include any physical touching...that would be battery. Malicous prosecution would be like a police officer pulling you over for doing 55 in a 65 MPH zone. One of the things that I take very seriously is that the inspector is limitted by the code in the same manner that the installer is. An inspector requiring more than the code has committed a tort and created a hardship on the installer by making the installer fix something, obviously requiring him to spend additional monies, beyond what he is required. Again it is very difficult to prove. The prosecuter would have to prove that the inspector was malicious in his requirements. If I mistakenly require more than the code, that is not malice...it is a mistake.

The defendants in teh case above have been charged with deriliction of duty. This is something that I'm not too familiar with. I'm not sure on all of the inner workings of it, so I'll not comment on it. I will be surprised, however, if they are found guilty.

Now...as far as inspecting without power goes, I think it is negligent on the inspector's part, but I don't think it is malicious. I don't agree with the practice, but I think it is a legal practice.
 
Re: Another death

Jim: You were asking a bit about my practices as an inspector.

You are right...I let very little slide. I enjoy the guys that I inspect for, and in fact, I am friends with many of them. I will enjoy a cold beer with an electrician after 5:00 P.M. The electricians are well aware of the fact that business and pleasure are two very different things with me, however.

I have been called overly thorough before. I've been called an a@#%@%le before. Thats fine. One of the things that I try to remember is that in the court of law, I am an easy target because I have demonstrated the fact that I'm not a moron. With that in mind, I don't roll over very often.

The best thing that an electrician can do is be present for an inspection. That way if there is something that the electrician knows that the inspector doesn't, and maybe it shouldn't be cited, the electrician can discuss it with the inspector. A handshake and an explanation is much safer in the court for an inspector than writing a violation and then not requiring it to be followed through.

I have used 90.4 to waive a specific requirement and will continue to do so. I have heard that some places put a lot of red tape around 90.4, and I think it is foolish. 90.4 is a way to legally justify the inspector not requiring a specific provision. It also helps the electrician. For example: in a commercial kitchen, the owner wants a 1,000 pound safe installed under the counter. 210.8(B) requires GFCI protection. I would use 90.4 on this since there is no way that someone will move this safe to gain access to the receptacle. By using 90.4, I have covered myself and the electrician.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top