Intent

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Intent

Originally posted by iwire:
Originally posted by electricmanscott:
To believe you can only go by the words written is very short sighted because many times the words contradict each other.
Click to expand...
To believe otherwise means one inspector can interpret intent differently than the next inspector.
Click to expand...
Not saying it's right just saying it is fact. Bob, you know as well as anyone that there are articles that contradict each other which forces us to interpret what the intent is. I wish it was all black and white but it just is not. Look at some simple questions that turn into twenty different interpretations. The end result is any and all code questions fall upon what is intended by the article.
 
Re: Intent

As much as we all want to know the panel's "intent" or history of the language, the intent or history has nothing to do with the present wording. The final words must stand by themselves and are open to interpretation by the local AHJs.

I have researched things to come up with history in order to shed light on my interpretation of a particular section but I am not the AHJ. Intent can be gotten from the panel statements during the preparation of the ROP and ROC but they are still not permitted to be used to "force" the AHJ to see it your way. The final words in the Code must stand by themselves and are open to interpretation by the local AHJs. :D
 
Re: Intent

The code is the code is the code. If you understand electricity, you understand the code. No matter which way to slice it.

Problem is the "twisting" comes in to play when you try to apply it to a situation to suit your needs and not cost you any money.

The code is easy to read and interpet. Simply do it right the first time, and no interpetation is needed. Plain and simple.

I reference the topic of "how many outlets allowed on a 20 amp circuit" per code as many as you want. plain and simple.

I live by the rule K.I.S.S.- Keep It Simple Stupid

Our company is very profitable with this. We teach the code as it is written to our employees. But you cant understand the code unless you know eletricity thru experience. Period.

[ May 16, 2005, 12:04 AM: Message edited by: bigjohn67 ]
 
Re: Intent

Here's an example of how someone interprets intent to establish enforcement.

We had a situation where a particular contractor was installing a smoke alarm to the entrance of a bedroom which happened to also be within 20' of the kitchen range. On these particular models, the ceiling height is around 12 feet at the smoke alarm location.

The electrical inspector failed the job citing NFPA 72 11.8.3.5(4). The particular smoke alarms being used were not of the photoelectric type but after reviewing the manufacturer's literature, the test button also served as a silencing means for false alarms.

The contractor appealed the decision and requested an explanation of why he couldn't keep the smoke alarms where they are and of the type installed. The big guy in the big corner office asked each inspector what they felt about the situation. He then asked what the intent of the section was. Most agreed the intent was to prevent nuisance alarming from the exhaust of a cooking applaince and the reason the rule permitted the use of a silencing type alarm was so that the homeowner could indeed silence the alarm during those occurances.

However, because the ceiling height is 12' in this particular situation, the big guy decided that it was not readily accessible and therefore not an effective silencing means and basically made a final ruling that if a homeowner cannot reach safely reach the silencing button from a typical household ladder, the alarms would not be permitted within 20' of the cooking applaince.

Has the authority havng jurisdiction over stepped his bounds and read into a sections intent? Yes. Is it right? Probably not, but if you want to work in this jurisdiction, then don't install a smoke alarm within 20' of the kitchen unless it can be reached by a step stool and has a silencing button on it. (or photoelectric)

I didn't bring this up to argue over the particular example, and I hope that does not happen, but to explain how easy it is for an AHJ or some other body serving as an AHJ to make a ruling based on what they believe a section means even though it is not spelled out that way word for word. Good or bad, that it the way it is.
 
Re: Intent

Intent and history can not enter into enforcement.
Click to expand...
They are used everyday by our courts for this very purpose. Very often a court will look at the Congressional Record to see what the written law really means. This is the same as looking at the ROPs and ROCs to see what an NEC section really means.
Don
 
Re: Intent

Good point, Don. :)

Okay, then: Intent is like duct tape.

If the wording isn't strong enough to hold a section together, it'll break under scrutiny and require duct tape.

Then in three years we can build another stronger section. :D

[ May 16, 2005, 08:18 AM: Message edited by: georgestolz ]
 
Re: Intent

The courts are continually concerned about cases, because of the precedence they may set. Some cases you even need an old case to bring up so that a precedence is there just to hear the case. Our entire judicial system is actually based on precedence or history and intent. How do we even dissect every article of the constitution. We look back at the intent of the founding fathers in what the wrote. Intent, precedence and history are what guides the future. The only time we even consider someone a visionary is when we look back at what he did. If the things that they invision don't come to pass he was just a nut case.

Sorry this doesn't seem to follow along with the NEC but we do use NEC as legal precedence for putting people in jail so it's the legal system that needs to be addressed.
 
Re: Intent

Don stole my thunder. Rather than sleeping last night I was thinking about this. :( You can bet sure as hell that if there were a situation that had you in court over an electrical code issue the lawyers would certainly be looking at every bit of info they could get their hands on. ROP's, handbook commentary, whatever. They most certainly would be arguing the intent of the rule you violated be it written clearly or in NEC speak.

Big john, if only it were that simple.
 
Re: Intent

By Scott:

You can bet sure as hell that if there were a situation that had you in court over an electrical code issue the lawyers would certainly be looking at every bit of info they could get their hands on. ROP's, handbook commentary, whatever. They most certainly would be arguing the intent of the rule you violated be it written clearly or in NEC speak.
Click to expand...
Scott, I would say that that would only be true if what the code "really" says is a problem to the case for whichever side.


Rather than sleeping last night I was thinking about this. :(
Click to expand...
And get some rest. :D
 
Re: Intent

Originally posted by physis:
Scott, I would say that that?would only be true if what the code "really" says is a problem to the case for whichever side.
Click to expand...
I didn't say whose lawyer. :D
 
Re: Intent

I?m surprised no one has cited the NEC?s own primary statements of intent:

90.1 Purpose.
(A) Practical Safeguarding. The purpose [intent?] of this Code is the practical safeguarding of persons and property from hazards arising from the use of electricity.
?.
(C) Intention. This Code is not intended as a design specification or an instruction manual for untrained persons.
Click to expand...
The problem, as I have observed it, it that the NEC is often used ??as a design specification [and /] or an instruction manual for untrained persons? and many interpretations are well beyond what is necessary for ?Practical Safeguarding.? When the ?untrained person? happens to be an AHJ or their designated representative, things get messy with interpretations made ?just to be safe.? It is also reasonable to draw a line between "safe" (a minimum requirement) and "safer" (an economic decision).

On the other hand, if persons or property are, in fact, injured or damaged, it is prima face evidence that there was inadequate ?practical safeguarding? and ?intent? of the Code will be carefully examined well beyond what is written in the text. Initially, you may held liable if you are ?? any party owning, designing, operating, controlling, or installing any electric equipment for damages to persons or property caused by a defect therein?? ([2002] 80.29) As I?ve said before, an owner of a facility is ALWAYS liable initially. They may be indemnified by insurance, contract or by law if it is a government facility. They may drag the designer, operator, controller, or installer into it eventually. Even if you believe you are in strict compliance with the applicable codes as you interpret them, any reasonable alternate interpretation that could have possibly prevented the accident will shoot you down.

So it boils down to this: If you believe what you are doing is safe, fight an unreasonable interpretation; conversely, if you have any doubts find out ? and understand - the ?intent.?

[ May 17, 2005, 11:31 AM: Message edited by: rbalex ]
 
Re: Intent

Bryan has brought up practical safegaurding.

See Bob, what you're saying nearly boils down to it doesn't make a difference, you're gonna get it either way. So really, what good is the code in court? If you think we make hamburger out it imagine what a handfull of lawyers and paralegals can do.

I hate our legal system. It doesn't work and I will never understand why no effort has ever or will ever be made to repair it.
 
Re: Intent

Well I won't debate the state of the legal system with you Sam.

The system has basically three levels of liability created by simple negligence, gross negligence and criminal negligence. They are progressively more difficult to prove. The last two may occasionally be the same.

Simple negligence means something was non-compliant but you didn't know it and generally weren't expected to. Typically, this would be a homeowner. There is still liability but normally it's just an insurance issue. It's one of the reasons I believe insurance companies should have a right to inspect as well as AHJs.

Gross negligence means something was non-compliant and you should have known and corrected it; usually this is demonstrated by holding a relevant license or certificate or otherwise holding yourself out as competent.(As a matter of fact, this is one reason why we issue driver's licenses.) Unlicensed contractors or DIYers often fall in this category. If you actually do the work you are holding yourself out as competent. You are liable but you can reduce it by showing you reasonably believed you were compliant. Simple ignorance is not a defense though.

Criminal negligence means something was non-compliant, you knew it was and deliberately failed to correct it, whether you had a license or not. It's very tough to prove. BTW, in most jurisdictions, this is the only level an AHJ or rep can be held liable for.

Interestingly enough, simply correcting the non-compliant "something" after the fact is not usually legal evidence of any level of negligence.
 
Re: Intent

The difficult part about our legal system is that lawyers try to find any angle they can.
Then, when it doesn't suit them, use the letter of the law, and throw intent, or the original reason for the law, out the window.


In regards to the NEC, yes we all need some kind of understanding of the original rule(s) to know what the rule is. Most rules do have some kind of inclination to the 'intent' located within the section it is in. There are some rules that are Electric Theory in nature, and the 'intent' can be determined with knowledge of how electricity works.
Yet, there are some rules that are just out there. They may have never been truly defined or worded to a point that is immune to varying interpretations.
Code Rule(s) must be taken at the face value of the rule itself, because any attempt at using intent as the base for your argument is subject to serious debate, since what we follow is the Code Rule. Intent should be used to verify and solidify a code rule, not to supercede the rule itself.
 
Re: Intent

Interestingly enough, simply correcting the non-compliant "something" after the fact is not usually legal evidence of any level of negligence.
Click to expand...
:roll: :eek: :confused:

Wow you must of talked to a lawyer. Problem is once it's in the legal system with lawyers it is not a matter of what is right or wrong, it's telling the best story to convince a judge or jury. And provided the other side doesn't just get all your evidence thrown out for some stupid legalistic reason.
 
Re: Intent

Here's two examples of code language that needs to be interpreted. The interpretation hopefully comes back on the intent of what the code article was trying to protect people form.

1. What is an unfinished basement, as it is only defined in some sections? This distinction determines whether you can run large cables on the bottom of joists, use non-metallic extensions, and probably some other things I can't remember.

2. Does a feeder from a subpanel to another lighting and appliance subpanel meet the following definition: "the feeder(s) between the main disconnect and the lighting and appliance branch-circuit panelboard(s)." This is the old 310.15(B)(6) argument. I would say it meets the definition, but many say it doesn't.

Example two is potentially poor writing (but I don't really know what the intent was to know if my interpretation of the words is what the CMP had in mind). Example 1 is using undefined terms. Neither of these issues should be in the NEC and both are correctable. But there is always going to be ambiguous language. So the question is what do you do when the language is ambiguous?
 
Re: Intent

Well,

I'm a little uncomfortable with this.

On the one hand, you can't build things based on the intent of the code. You'll have to use the words of the code.

Then.

If something goes wrong you might end up in court with a bunch of banchees using intent to spin everything into something different than what the words say. (Otherwise there'd be no purpose to looking into intent)

I guess if you're around this kind of disordered thinking enough it starts to seem rational. But I don't think you'll find me agreeing with it any time soon.
 
Re: Intent

As the old saying goes, "When you're the defendant, if you're guilty get a jury; if you're innocent get a judge."

Criminal negligence is very rare in our industry and I seriously doubt any of the regulars here need to worry. So that leaves most of the issues to civil cases.

We may see a rash of litigation until AFCIs become commonplace but most of them will be product liability suits rather than design or installation cases. If you simply have a reasonable interpretation, the odds are VERY heavy in your favor before a judge. Now days, civil cases have enough case law to apply that attorneys can't twist things too much where tried only before a judge - even with new technologies in play.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top