electric fire

[Rewire]

Just heard on our local news of a minor house fire. It would seem that the electrician working on the water heater after he was done turned all the breakers back on. Well one of these breakers was feeding to the crawl space were an old A/C had been removed it arced causing a fire that did around $1000.00 of damage.

 

[LarryFine]

Well one of these breakers was feeding to the crawl space were an old A/C had been removed it arced causing a fire that did around $1000.00 of damage.

In my opinion, the culprit is whomever left the AC feed hanging. It (obviously, Bob ) should have been removed or boxed and insulated. Removing the wires from the breaker wouldn't have hurt, either.

 

[sparkyway]

Anytime I change a panel out, I spend a little time with a pad, paper, and circuit markers. One of my concerns is that I might energize a circuit that was originally off...or that a circuit has been double fed on the same phase which could end up on the opposite phase after the panel replacement. We have only had licensing for a few years and the jacklegs still leave their signs all over. It sounds like the electrician should have spent a little more time being extra careful and only turn on/off the one breaker he was working with. Two wrongs made it a nightmare. Not good.

 

[growler]

My opinion is that unless a breaker is locked in the off position it's meant to be in the on position. The guy that disconnected the A/Cunit is at fault if you could ever figure out who that is.

Breakers always get turned on, sooner or later. In commercial it's the maintenance staff, at residential it's the homeowner. Soon as something doesn't work it's breaker flipping time.

I have been called out when a GC set fire to the insulation when he raised a ceiling tile. It was the high voltage feed for a neon light that was left energized and laying in the ceiling. Happens all the time, they turn the breakers off, clip the wires to the sign and remove and then it's just a matter of time until some maintenance person flips the breakers on.

It's just a good thing that no one was hurt.

 

[mthead]

electric fire

Two unfortunate things happened here.
1]There was a fire.
2]It inolved "Electric" which means it involves us,our field.
The lessons learned here are
The last electrician on a job,in effect,{and by that I mean --In the eyes of the courts
--In the eyes of the persons who owned the property or whose family member wa affected,in the eyes of those who here about the incident,and ultimately in his own eyes because even when we know it was in no way our fault we still subconciusly will question ourselves}
Has bought "THE JOB".
Doesn't matter wether it's right--it is the way it is.
The suggestion by sparkyway is a good one.
We have to watch out for ourselves because nobody else will.

 

[NolaTigaBait]

well, that is ridiculous imo...what am i supposed to do?...pull every outlet, fixture down, etc...?...am i supposed to rip out the sheetrock?...i don't know what is going on behind the walls...the cost to the customer who just wants xyz done would be very high, if we would have to thoroughly go through the home...i check the obvious stuff and i guess i'm taking on a huge risk by doing so

 

[Mr. Wizard]

When the electrician turned off the power to the water heater, I am assuming that the breaker that initiated the fire was off at that time. So when the power to the water heater was restored, why did he feel compelled to close every breaker in the panel? I make it a rule that if I didn't turn it off, it stays off. Yeah, good luck assigning blame to anyone but the electrician. If he would have opened and closed only the circuit that he was working on, all would have (probably) been fine.

 

[nakulak]

if I am reading that right ($1000.00 ?) - not much of a fire

 

[Rewire]

if I am reading that right ($1000.00 ?) - not much of a fire

missed a 0 it was 10 grand.

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

If it was a $1,000, the EC could probably pay out of pocket for damages.
$10,000 most likely means the insurance agent is getting a phone call.

 

[Rewire]

battle of the insurance companys

 

[growler]

Yeah, good luck assigning blame to anyone but the electrician. If he would have opened and closed only the circuit that he was working on, all would have (probably) been fine.

Turning a breaker off is not considered a proper safety proceedure so even if the AC contractor had been down in the crawl space still working on the unit it would have just been his hard luck.

Locking out a breaker is considered a safety measure for temporary but if anyone intends to leave any building wiring in a hazardous condition they had best remove the conducter from the breaker.

If they can find the jerk that left the wiring in this condition they will assign blame easy enough. All breakers in a panel are subject to being turned on . Lights go out in the middle of the night, it's breaker flipping time.

If anyone can find any rule that allows unsafe building wiring just because the breaker is off I would like to see it. :-?

 

[hillbilly1]

So when the power to the water heater was restored, why did he feel compelled to close every breaker in the panel?

He may have removed the cover, and thought that it may have been accidentally knocked off, happens all of the time. The blame is squarely on the person who did not properly terminate the wires disconnected, more than likely a HVAC tech, but that is only speculation.

 

[weressl]

In my opinion, the culprit is whomever left the AC feed hanging. It (obviously, Bob ) should have been removed or boxed and insulated. Removing the wires from the breaker wouldn't have hurt, either.

So he turned ALL the breakers on, even the ones that were not on before he started his work? Should he have questioned it? I think he should have. Is he liable? I believe so, although not 100% of the claim would be assigned to him.

 

[weressl]

He may have removed the cover, and thought that it may have been accidentally knocked off, happens all of the time. The blame is squarely on the person who did not properly terminate the wires disconnected, more than likely a HVAC tech, but that is only speculation.

Legally no. The fire WAS directly caused by the electrician turning the breaker ON. That was outside of his area of contractual obligation, in other words he had no business of turning it on. So in the court the only argument between the different parties will be the % of reasponsibility each gets assigned.

 

[growler]

Legally no. The fire WAS directly caused by the electrician turning the breaker ON.

A circuit breaker is an overcurrent protection device and is not considered a means of disconnect unless it's in the locked off position.

There should never be a reason to assume that a breaker is being used to protect faulty wiring in any structure. There are no provisions anywhere to allow a breaker in the off position to protect anything. The normal operating position of a breaker is in the ON position.

It's actually quite common for electricians to tell homeowner to turn breakers off and back on if they are having electrical problems because it's not obvious when all types of breakers are tripped.

 

[weressl]

A circuit breaker is an overcurrent protection device and is not considered a means of disconnect unless it's in the locked off position.

There should never be a reason to assume that a breaker is being used to protect faulty wiring in any structure. There are no provisions anywhere to allow a breaker in the off position to protect anything. The normal operating position of a breaker is in the ON position.

It's actually quite common for electricians to tell homeowner to turn breakers off and back on if they are having electrical problems because it's not obvious when all types of breakers are tripped.

The fire WAS directly caused by the electrician turning the breaker ON.

 

[growler]

The fire WAS directly caused by the electrician turning the breaker ON.

The fire was caused by faulty wiring. Circuit breakers are actually designed to prevent fires.

If there is ever a time when we have to go out and try to figure out which circuits are safe to turn on then a service call may end up costing around $10,000.00. If anyone thinks that every time a breaker gets turned on that a whole property gets a complete safety inspection, then they are wrong.

If a circuit is disconnected and wire nutted off in the panel then an electrician has a reason to think there may be a reason to check the circuit out.

 

[weressl]

The fire was caused by faulty wiring. Circuit breakers are actually designed to prevent fires.

If there is ever a time when we have to go out and try to figure out which circuits are safe to turn on then a service call may end up costing around $10,000.00. If anyone thinks that every time a breaker gets turned on that a whole property gets a complete safety inspection, then they are wrong.

If a circuit is disconnected and wire nutted off in the panel then an electrician has a reason to think there may be a reason to check the circuit out.

The wiring was not faulty, it was incomplete. The electrician in case did NOT turn the circuit breaker off, it was off. Any electrician who turns a breaker onto a circuit not installed by him, or have no idea what it feeds or not previously checked by shorts performs a negligent act. Russian roulette. (Rulet is a small rule......)

 

[LarryFine]

The wiring was not faulty, it was incomplete.

That wasn't caused by this electrician.

Any electrician who turns a breaker onto a circuit not installed by him, or have no idea what it feeds or not previously checked by shorts performs a negligent act.

Suppose the homeowner had turned that breaker on. Would the person who left the feed unterminated be any more or less at fault?

Between turning on a breaker and leaving an equipment feed hanging with bare wires, the latter is the more negligent act, IMO.