Is NEC a legally enforceable document?

[rbalex]

Bob, the specification states “the latest version of the NEC shall be followed, (2023 code).
It also references CA Title 24, Chapter 3, (2020 code) as a document that must be utilized. This has become problematic for both engineering and construction. Which takes precedence?

CA Title 24 is the State’s adopted Building Standard. Some local jurisdictions have local amendments, but legally, they must be submitted with justification and approved by the California Building Standards Commission.

The Tri-annual adoption of CA Title 24 is rather complex and several local jurisdictions are unaware that they are themselves noncompliant

As several have stated, if the NEC 2023 Edition is more stringent, it would most likely be accepted by an AHJ under Ca Electrical Code, Section 90.4 “special permission.”

 

[Knightryder12]

If an electrical inspector noticed items that were believed to be code violations he would be forced to write them up to cover himself from liability.

If the Authority Having Jurisdiction decides these are not important then the inspecter has done his job.

It's not a college degree that counts here it's who has "authority".

I have always been under the assumption that neither the inspectors or the AHJ can be held liable for anything that they have overlooked either during site inspections or plan review.

 

[ggunn]

I have always been under the assumption that neither the inspectors or the AHJ can be held liable for anything that they have overlooked either during site inspections or plan review.

"But you guys approved it!"
"Maybe so, but we shouldn't have."

 

[gadfly56]

"But you guys approved it!"
"Maybe so, but we shouldn't have."

Yeah, that's pretty much it. Would have cost $ to fix then, but $$$ now.

 

[rbalex]

I have always been under the assumption that neither the inspectors or the AHJ can be held liable for anything that they have overlooked either during site inspections or plan review.

You are correct. If you show me, the statute that gives an AHJ their authority I will show you in the same statute, or a superior one that they or their representatives have no liability except actually failing to inspect (if required) or taking a bribe.

 

[Bill Snyder]

Agreed, but in this case the inspector is (probably) correct - PM simply doesn’t want comply since it means an increase in cost


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The project manager is wrong he can argue the written documents adopted by the AHJ but he must have a written document to do so if one part of the argument is missing AHJ rules apply per 90.4.