Inspector liability

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

royal

Member
Hello everybody,
What liability does a building inspector incur if he deems a newly implemented code is causing too many problems so he decides not to enforce it?
Here is the scenario:
I am located in Northern California. My general contractor was talking to the local inspector the other day about how now AFCI protection is required on all bedroom outlets per the 2002 NEC. The GC asked him if the local electricians are having any problems with the new rule. The inspector stated that they (the electricians) are having problems with the AFCI's tripping on the lighting circuits so he decided not to enforce the all outlet rule and stick just to the receptacles. When I asked my GC if it was the inspectors decision or the local AHJ's decision, he didn't know.
Now I know there is quite the debate on wether AFCI's are worth it or not, but they are code in California. Let us say a branch circuit fire occurs on a circuit that was supposed to be protected by an AFCI, and it was determined that a AFCI would have protected said circuit, is the inspector liable for damages?
My feeling is that AFCI's have been used in other states and the only problems arising from said usage is bad wiring practices. And if the inspector is saying that AFCI's are having too many problems on lighting circuits, that tells me that some installation practices need looking into.
 
Re: Inspector liability

royal said:
Hello everybody,
... so he decided not to enforce the all outlet rule and stick just to the receptacles. When I asked my GC if it was the inspectors decision or the local AHJ's decision, he didn't know.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see that decision in writing.

NJ has issue with AFCIs.....Solution - don't use them and it IS in writing.

As far as this inspectors decision, how does that affect a circuit that feeds not only bedroom recepts., but also lighting and smokes in that room? (Does CA. not allow that? I don't know).

You might consider getting a "proper" answer about the AFCIs directly from the AHJ and leave the "he said, she said" business behind you.
 
Most afci troubles are from neutral to ground faults,at least that is what I have found 100 % of the time when an afci trips when a load is introduced.There was an issue with homeline breakers that would not trip on push to test but that has been addressed.Sure there might be the occasional nusiance trip from lets say a vacum cleaner or something of that nature.Due dilligense and proper trouble shooting can find the cause.I always turn off all switches unplug all cord caps and check neutral to ground for the fault usually it is in a receptacle.Sometimes an over zealous rough in guy will slice to deep with a utility knife and when cut in and tucked away things touch.Sectionalize and break it down and the problem will be found.That goes for all faults dilligense is the key.
 
If the local jurisdiction has accepted the 2005 code and has not EXCLUDED AFCI protection for lighting then the inspector is granting SPECIAL PERMISSION for each job for this protection to be deleted. Read the definition of SPECIAL PERMISSION, it must be in writing. I doubt seriously that this inspector would be willing to put in writing that AFCI does not need to be installed on lighting circuits. Without such special permission, the electrician is responsible for following the code (enforced or not) as it is accepted by the jurisdiction in question. The electrician will be LIABLE for not following the code, not the inspector. The inspector can decide what to check and what not to check, but it is ultimately the electricians duty and responsibility to follow the code.
 
The AHJ "should" put something in writing.

The inspector "should not" be doing this on his own. It could be construed as willful negligence.

In the front of the California Electrical Code is a statement regarding loacal ammendments. All local ammendments are "supposed" to be cleared thru Sacramento. Al local ammendments are "supposed" to be for local climatic or geographical conditions.

A lot of "suppose to's" and "should's" in the above.

You need to have your posterior covered in case something happens.

Get it writing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ask for it respectfully and tactfully from the Chief Building Official.
Do Not go behind the inspectors back.
Let him know you need it in writing from the CBO. He may think twice about his decision at that point.
 
Written special permission or not IMO the electrician will be the one on the hook if the stuff hits the fan.

Short of an actual amendment deleting the NEC requirement I would install the AFCIs.
 
Re: Inspector liability

royal said:
Let us say a branch circuit fire occurs on a circuit that was supposed to be protected by an AFCI, and it was determined that a AFCI would have protected said circuit, is the inspector liable for damages?.
Click to expand...

Only a judge, jury, or mediator can really answer the inspector liability question as posed.

If the inspector is actually failing installations because of AFCIs and you're getting it in writing, then I think there's at least a good case to be made. But that doesn't sound like your situation, you didn't say he was failing the AFCIs.

If the inspector is merely not requiring it, my answer is you bid and install per NEC, regardless of how the inspector feels about AFCIs. You can bet you and the GC will be in the liability food chain if you don't install to code, regardless of what was enforced.

Chris Knight
Syracuse NY
 
In writing or not this is a risky game for both inspector and electrician.Should there be a fire and posable death and it is proven to a jury that had there been afci protection it would have saved this from happening your both getting sued and found guilty.Local ahj are saying they know more than the underwriters of nec.Should they take action by either writing or overlooking this they just set themselfs up for a major lawsuit.I would think twice to not put them in.They work fine for everyone else.
 
it is not up to the inspector to decide what he or she is going to enforce, but as a contractor the defense I knew it was wrong but I did anyway will not save you if you ended up in court.
 
Jim W in Tampa said:
In writing or not this is a risky game for both inspector and electrician.Should there be a fire and posable death and it is proven to a jury that had there been afci protection it would have saved this from happening your both getting sued and found guilty.Local ahj are saying they know more than the underwriters of nec.Should they take action by either writing or overlooking this they just set themselfs up for a major lawsuit.I would think twice to not put them in.They work fine for everyone else.
Click to expand...

This is what I was thinking.
I will try to be at the final inspection. I will address this and ask to get his "waiver" in writing, I will have to be tactful.
I did ask his boss if there were any local exceptions to the AFCI section of the code and he stated that there were none.
We shall see what happens. Thanks everybody for the responses.
Tim
 
I trust you know what a non written agreement is worth.Play it safe and install the breaker.If it then causes problems you cant fix let us know.If the circuit is wired right they will work.
 
Royal wrote.
"The inspector stated that they (the electricians) are having problems with the AFCI's tripping on the lighting circuits so he decided not to enforce the all outlet rule and stick just to the receptacles"

Based on this statement I don't see where you are not required to put the lighting circuit on an AFCI breaker. Just because he chooses not to enforce it does not mean it isn't required.
 
This inspector may actually be a nice guy, and he is trying to help the ECs... Inspectors are rarely the AHJ, the municipality or state they work for is. With that said, he will not be able to provide the written special permission, that would have to come from someone above him.
This same thing happened in our neck of the woods, and the contractor had to go back and make a correction.

Second thought: how is this lighting creating such a problem? Did anyone think to check their work first?
 
cosmo said:
Royal wrote.
"The inspector stated that they (the electricians) are having problems with the AFCI's tripping on the lighting circuits so he decided not to enforce the all outlet rule and stick just to the receptacles"

Based on this statement I don't see where you are not required to put the lighting circuit on an AFCI breaker. Just because he chooses not to enforce it does not mean it isn't required.
Click to expand...

There are three main problems I am having with this.
One is the fact that if it is not being enforced, nobody will do it.
Two, the lack of knowledge the person responsible for enforcing the minimum basics of safety seems to have.
And three, the worst of them all, is the fact that enough of are fellow electricians in this area cannot install or troubleshoot a basic circuit without having problems that only can be addressed by the non-enforcement of the code.
I asked one electrician what he thought about the possibility of the requirements of the next code cycle that all the circuits in the home would have too be AFCI'ed and he said "that it would be impossible. AFCI's will not work on fluorescents and California is now requiring fluorescents on most lights". When I asked him how an AFCI worked, all he could say was "they don't work, you are better off using a GFCI." It is this type of ignorance that gives electricians a bad name.
When people refuse too learn, that is wrong.
Tim
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top