Sunday Repairs

[petersonra]

Your exposure is greater with used parts,how do you aquire most of your used parts?Most used parts are aquired when they are replaced with new parts so the question is why were they replaced?If I replace a meter because a lug burned and I salvage the other lug put it in a base and it fails I have assumed 100% liability now if I purchase a new base and it fails the manufacturer now has assumed part of the liability as my liability is now limited to the installation.

You are 100% responsible in any case. It is a myth that anyone can transfer legal liability to someone else. In fact, if there is a law suit and you are found 50% responsible and another party is also found 50% responsible, you are usually on the hook for 100% of the damages awarded if the other party does not pay

It may be helpful to have a large company standing in court alongside you, but they usually can't say they have no liability for the used but still servicible part that was reused anymore than they can avoid liability for that part in its existing installation. It is still a used part in either case.

 

[Rewire]

You are 100% responsible in any case. It is a myth that anyone can transfer legal liability to someone else. In fact, if there is a law suit and you are found 50% responsible and another party is also found 50% responsible, you are usually on the hook for 100% of the damages awarded if the other party does not pay

It may be helpful to have a large company standing in court alongside you, but they usually can't say they have no liability for the used but still servicible part that was reused anymore than they can avoid liability for that part in its existing installation. It is still a used part in either case.

I am glad you are not my lawyer,If I install a product acording to the manufatures specs and code compliant and the part has a defect due to manufacturing then my exposure to liability is arguably less than if I pull a part out of a piece of equipment that was replaced to to a problem which is how we aquire most used parts.Without knowing the history of a part how do you know it will not fail,I know that even new parts can fail but the probability curve greatly increases with used parts.

 

[LawnGuyLandSparky]

friz...the truth is you are correct...the other truth is that it doesn't matter that you are correct...

if the house burns down and someone dies (unlikely, but run with it) the insurance company will use their deep pockets and army of attorneys (or blood sucking scum) to go after you...your legal fees and other costs associated with defending yourself could, in a very real sense, bankrupt you...

so while people can say, no worries..they also won't be on the hook with you if something were to happen.

my entire point is think about this stuff and protect yourself the best you can..good luck...

I want to point out that it seems at least 90% of residential fires around here end up being classified as electrical. Some of the more recent ones decsribe these fires occuring in basement apartments, or illegal single family home conversions or other, uninspected finsihed living spaces. I have yet to hear about any electrical contractor being charged with anything, or sued by insurers. I haven't heard of anyone, including the owners of the property going to jail.

Believe it or not, insurers are loathe to engage the courts. Even when doctors are sued there's usually an out of court settlement because the insurers would rather settle than suffer the costs of litigation. And when they do end up in court, there's always an attorney for the plaintiff's insurance company flanked by an attorney for the plaintiff as an individual, because the insurance company's counsel isn't necessarily interested in defending their customer.

When it comes to lawsuits, specifically torts, the accusor has to prove negligence. Negligence is defined as the failure of a person to do something that a "reasonable person" would ordinarily do, or doing something that a reasonable person would not ordinarily do, or the failure to use ordinary care.

So it comes down to, would a reasonable person use a part that was perfectly fine when it was taken out of service? You say an attorney would ask if it was sent out for testing. It sure as heck was, it was tested for years in it's previous installation and came through that test with flying colors. It never failed. Talk about a real life bench test!

I'd venture to guess that you think installing a brand new meter pan somehow absolves you, or at least insulates you from liability should that fail. You probably think the manufacturer would be left holding the bag. Have you considered that decent trial lawyer might demand your bench test procedures on new equipment? After all, it's not UNreasonable to state that many of the parts and devices we've been seeing lately, manufactured who knows where, have been defective right out of the box. Lately every electrician has lamented that the quality of manufactured components just isn't there anymore. So it's not unreasonable to suggest that with the quality control of electrical components being suspect, no reasonable person should assume worthiness without some qualifier other than "I just bought it."

And yet that is exactly what everyone is doing when they justify installing new just to "CYA."

IMO you are no worse off installing used, undamaged equipment than new from a liability standpoint. At least used parts have proven themselves and withstood the test of time.

Just because something is damaged, doesn't mean repair is not not a reasonable option over replacement. Am I the only one who detects a little profit motive as being the real reason you're rattling the gavel of "CYA sensibility" as a scare tactic towards higher profits?

 

[LawnGuyLandSparky]

FWIW, when I was doing fire alarms in the late 70's, we would routinely remove old Faraday systems to install new gear. The removed parts were "cleaned & tested" (for basic function, they were mostly special relays) and put on the shelf for spares. We hit the spares pile maybe once a month to restore or expand service in some old building. Was this wrong? The local FDs didn't seem to think so. (I guess a functioning FA is better than a non-functioning one.)

Plane crashes and car wrecks are salvaged for parts too.

 

[LawnGuyLandSparky]

That is why the pay-off is sometimes the chosen route instead of the trial.

But payoff is never the choice of the accused, it's the insurer who would rather not pay for a good fight. And keep in mind your insurer is defending their bottom line, not yours.

Does anyone here know of a contractor sued for a defective electrical installation, where the contractor ended up in the poorhouse or the big house?

Anyone?

 

[LawnGuyLandSparky]

I am glad you are not my lawyer,If I install a product acording to the manufatures specs and code compliant and the part has a defect due to manufacturing then my exposure to liability is arguably less than if I pull a part out of a piece of equipment that was replaced to to a problem which is how we aquire most used parts.Without knowing the history of a part how do you know it will not fail,I know that even new parts can fail but the probability curve greatly increases with used parts.

You DO know the history of the used part! It worked flawlessly for years when you removed it from a real-life bench test. The test concluded when the 200a service you took it from was upgraded for being inadequate, not incapable. Not defective.

 

[Rewire]

I have yet to hear about any electrical contractor being charged with anything, or sued by insurers. I haven't heard of anyone, including the owners of the property going to jail.

Most cases are settled between insurance carriers and electricians much like doctors are not going to announce to the world they have been sued.

Believe it or not, insurers are loathe to engage the courts. Even when doctors are sued there's usually an out of court settlement because the insurers would rather settle than suffer the costs of litigation. And when they do end up in court, there's always an attorney for the plaintiff's insurance company flanked by an attorney for the plaintiff as an individual, because the insurance company's counsel isn't necessarily interested in defending their customer.

settle out of court is always cheaper and always get your own lawyer

When it comes to lawsuits, specifically torts, the accusor has to prove negligence. Negligence is defined as the failure of a person to do something that a "reasonable person" would ordinarily do, or doing something that a reasonable person would not ordinarily do, or the failure to use ordinary care.

the standard is lower than in a criminal case it is not beyond a reasonable doubt but weighted

So it comes down to, would a reasonable person use a part that was perfectly fine when it was taken out of service?

assumes facts not in evidence

You say an attorney would ask if it was sent out for testing. It sure as heck was, it was tested for years in it's previous installation and came through that test with flying colors. It never failed. Talk about a real life bench test!

how many times was this part pushed to the point of failure during its previous use,was the part damaged in removal,why was the part removed if it was not broke or part of a damaged assembly

I'd venture to guess that you think installing a brand new meter pan somehow absolves you, or at least insulates you from liability should that fail. You probably think the manufacturer would be left holding the bag. Have you considered that decent trial lawyer might demand your bench test procedures on new equipment? After all, it's not UNreasonable to state that many of the parts and devices we've been seeing lately, manufactured who knows where, have been defective right out of the box. Lately every electrician has lamented that the quality of manufactured components just isn't there anymore. So it's not unreasonable to suggest that with the quality control of electrical components being suspect, no reasonable person should assume worthiness without some qualifier other than "I just bought it."

A reasonable person would believe that a part purchased from a reputable supplier was manufactured to meet minimum standards of reliability

IMO you are no worse off installing used, undamaged equipment than new from a liability standpoint. At least used parts have proven themselves and withstood the test of time.

Glad your not my legal advisor

Just because something is damaged, doesn't mean repair is not not a reasonable option over replacement. Am I the only one who detects a little profit motive as being the real reason you're rattling the gavel of "CYA sensibility" as a scare tactic towards higher profits?

If profit were a motive then advocating selling used parts for new price would be the position to take.

 

[LawnGuyLandSparky]

Most cases are settled between insurance carriers and electricians much like doctors are not going to announce to the world they have been sued.

As a result, doctors are seeing their liability coverage increase to the magnitude of $100,000.00 per year. How much is a contractor's liability coverage going for these days?

settle out of court is always cheaper and always get your own lawyer

Not in the long run. Then again, insurance corporations aren't as interested in the costs over the long run, they're looking quarterly. This is why there is so much resistance to tort reform. If the loser ends up paying all of the costs of the litigation, there would be far fewer lawyers.

the standard is lower than in a criminal case it is not beyond a reasonable doubt but weighted

Were not talking about reasonable doubt. Getting sued is a civil action, not criminal.

assumes facts not in evidence how many times was this part pushed to the point of failure during its previous use,was the part damaged in removal,why was the part removed if it was not broke or part of a damaged assembly

The burdon of proof is on the accuser. You don't have to prove a part was reliable. Even though it has proven itself reliable already, which is why you kept it. That is a fact in evidence. It must be proven it was not reliable by the accuser. That isn't evident, and must be made evident if that is going to be the crux of a suit. So the question comes down to, is it reasonable that a used part could be considered reliable after it has worked flawlessly for years, is it unreasonable to reuse that part, AND can the accuser prove that a subsequent failure was due to the reuse of that part.

A reasonable person would believe that a part purchased from a reputable supplier was manufactured to meet minimum standards of reliability

And what reason would you believe that part loses it reputation for reliability? Do static parts with no wear and tear have an expiration date?

Glad your not my legal advisor

Me too. It would be as foolhearty as taking legal advice from someone with a profit motive pitching the sale of new parts to CYA. And yet because it sounds like it makes more sense to install new to CYA, those words are still coming from a contractor.

If profit were a motive then advocating selling used parts for new price would be the position to take.

When profit is the motive, all else takes a back seat to the ultimate goal, no matter how much sense it makes or doesn't make.

 

[iwire]

I am not a lawyer but I pretend to be one on the Internet. :grin:

 

[Rewire]

As a result, doctors are seeing their liability coverage increase to the magnitude of $100,000.00 per year. How much is a contractor's liability coverage going for these days?

depends on the level of coverage

Not in the long run. Then again, insurance corporations aren't as interested in the costs over the long run, they're looking quarterly. This is why there is so much resistance to tort reform. If the loser ends up paying all of the costs of the litigation, there would be far fewer lawyers.

this makes no sense

Were not talking about reasonable doubt. Getting sued is a civil action, not criminal.

my point exactly less burden of proof

The burdon of proof is on the accuser.

but the birden is often low

You don't have to prove a part was reliable.

this would be a summary judgement

Even though it has proven itself reliable already, which is why you kept it. That is a fact in evidence. It must be proven it was not reliable by the accuser. That isn't evident, and must be made evident if that is going to be the crux of a suit. So the question comes down to, is it reasonable that a used part could be considered reliable after it has worked flawlessly for years, is it unreasonable to reuse that part, AND can the accuser prove that a subsequent failure was due to the reuse of that part.

the argument comes down to is the fact it was a used part a contributing factor to failure and was it reasonable to assume the used part would not fail the argument that it was in service for years without problem helps but also opens the door to the argument that it was likely subject to conditions that could lead to failure

And what reason would you believe that part loses it reputation for reliability? Do static parts with no wear and tear have an expiration date?

enviromental conditions have an effect even on static parts

Me too. It would be as foolhearty as taking legal advice from someone with a profit motive pitching the sale of new parts to CYA. And yet because it sounds like it makes more sense to install new to CYA, those words are still coming from a contractor.

when you get sued for installing old parts let me know how it works out for you

When profit is the motive, all else takes a back seat to the ultimate goal, no matter how much sense it makes or doesn't make.

Not sure which side you are arguing but most businesses are profit motivated

 

[macmikeman]

When them SUV's started flipping over on the freeway due to underinflated tire pressure straight from the factory, the car dealerships were not held liable by any courts. They bought and sold the cars to the end users. Electrical contractors are the same. If the part fails, the installer is not held liable for its testing, that is implied by the manufacture as having been done to the component before it leaves the factory. As I said when this thread began, it is tempting to re-use service parts, but better to provide brand new and charge the appropriate amount for its resale. Then make sure you install it the proper way. Temporary fix to hold until Monday is fine in my book, but make sure to ensure you are going to be paid to return and replace it, or have the owner sign off on the liability of the temporary fix.

 

[zdog]

just a question.on the ops pic it looks like the meter is recessed in the wall.what if he had a meter of same type never used but a year old and you took out the both lugs and replaced them with the good ones. ,but not replace the can.would you call that a temp fix or good to go?

 

[petersonra]

I am glad you are not my lawyer,If I install a product acording to the manufatures specs and code compliant and the part has a defect due to manufacturing then my exposure to liability is arguably less than if I pull a part out of a piece of equipment that was replaced to to a problem which is how we aquire most used parts.Without knowing the history of a part how do you know it will not fail,I know that even new parts can fail but the probability curve greatly increases with used parts.

I don't even pretend to be a lawyer, but I do know that you cannot shift liability to another party. If you are sued it is your problem. Your liability insurance is there to provide legal defense and to cover damages that may be assessed. but it is not your insurance company that is being sued, they are a third party to the suit.

It matters not one bit if the part you used was brand new or 100 years old. you installed it, and because of that fact you are likely to be sued.

A clever plaintiff's lawyer might be able to make the used part into an issue with a jury, but as far as your liability goes, where the part came from changes nothing.

 

[emahler]

I don't even pretend to be a lawyer, but I do know that you cannot shift liability to another party. If you are sued it is your problem. Your liability insurance is there to provide legal defense and to cover damages that may be assessed. but it is not your insurance company that is being sued, they are a third party to the suit.

It matters not one bit if the part you used was brand new or 100 years old. you installed it, and because of that fact you are likely to be sued.

A clever plaintiff's lawyer might be able to make the used part into an issue with a jury, but as far as your liability goes, where the part came from changes nothing.

you are not shifting responsibility, he manufactuer already has it...you will be sued, but so will they....

 

[jrclen]

View attachment 1352

Do you save old parts from service changes you have done?

View attachment 1353

Look at that long wire stub on the lower left. Was it like that from the original install? It looks sloppy to me. I wonder if that guy forgot to tighten the clamp on the right?

Just out of curiosity, can you get a permit and inspection on Sunday? Not me.

 

[frizbeedog]

posted by, jrclen

Look at that long wire stub on the lower left. Was it like that from the original install? It looks sloppy to me. I wonder if that guy forgot to tighten the clamp on the right?

Yes, and you can see that I trimmed it. It was very close to the can.

posted by, jrclen

Just out of curiosity, can you get a permit and inspection on Sunday? Not me

.

The following is from Oregon Admistrative Rules:

918-309-0080
Temporary Electrical Permit Rule

(a) ?Emergency Electrical Work? is an acute,
unplanned and immediate need for electrical repair or
replacement involving an existing electrical installation or
product or both;

(3) Temporary Permit. A jurisdiction shall
recognize the existence of a temporary electrical permit
when the contractor encounters ?emergency electrical
work? or ?unanticipated electrical work,? complies
with section (4) of this rule and does electrical work.
(4) Temporary Permit Procedures. The contractor
must comply with subsection (a) of this section and
with one of the requirements of subsections (b) to (d)
of this section:
(a) Prior to commencing work, the contractor
shall fill out a standard form electrical permit
application for any jurisdiction, identify the proper
jurisdiction, identify the contractor, and provide the
electrical contractor and Construction Contractors
Board identifications:
(A) The standard permit application form
covering electrical installations can be used in any
transaction, except the fees shall be that of the
jurisdiction where the work is done;
(B) A restricted energy electrical application can
only be used if the work is strictly covered by that
permit;
(C) The temporary permit must be signed by the
journeyman or technician that does the work or by a
supervising electrician;
(D) A copy must be posted at the job site marked
?temporary permit,? showing the starting work date
and the ending date of the temporary permit. The
ending date shall not be more than seven days from the
starting date.
(b) FAX a copy to the jurisdiction and mail the
original with proper payment to the jurisdiction all
within seven days of the start of the work;
(c) If the jurisdiction does not have a FAX
machine, telephone the jurisdiction informing it of the
time, place and type of work that was started within 24
hours of the opening for business by the jurisdiction,
and mail a copy of the completed application and
payment within seven days of the start of the work; or
(d) If the jurisdiction has a recording device, call
in the time, place and type of work within 12 hours of
the start of work and complete the electrical permit
application and payment within seven days of the start
of the work.

 

[jrclen]

posted by, jrclen

Yes, and you can see that I trimmed it. It was very close to the can.

posted by, jrclen
.
The following is from Oregon Admistrative Rules:

Yes, I see you trimmed it. My point was - sloppy work on one side may explain the melt down on the other side.

We can do emergency repairs under the same sort of rules. My big question would be getting the POCO to put the meter back without a green sticker. Just wondering that's all.

 

[frizbeedog]

We can do emergency repairs under the same sort of rules. My big question would be getting the POCO to put the meter back without a green sticker. Just wondering that's all.

We as contractors must certify that that the electrical installation meets current codes and may be safely energized. We essentially let them off the hook with written docummentation of such and with all permit information.
The Power Co. is required to re-energize under this rule of Oregon Revised Statutes:

479.570 Installation approved by inspector;
exceptions. (1) Except as provided
in subsection (2) of this section, a person
who sells electricity shall not energize an
electrical installation unless the installation
is first approved by an inspector authorized
to perform inspections under ORS 479.510 to
479.945.
(2) Subsection (1) of this section does not
apply to:
(a) An installation for which a written
request to energize has been made by a licensed
supervising electrician qualified pursuant
to ORS 479.630 (2) and to which the
appropriate electrical permit has been attached;
(b) A temporary installation of less than
480 volts made to provide service to a construction
site or irrigation pump if the installation
is properly grounded and the
appropriate electrical permit is attached
thereto;
(c) An installation within a plant or system
of a person who sells electricity. As used
in this paragraph, ?person who sells electricity?
does not include small power production
facilities as defined in ORS 758.500
(1981 Replacement Part); or
(d) A minor electrical installation for
which a valid installation label has been issued.
(3) Electrical installations energized
without inspection pursuant to subsection
(2)(a) and (b) of this section must receive
final inspection as required by ORS 479.510
to 479.945. [1959 c.406 ?8; 1981 c.815 ?11; 1983 c.580
?1; 1987 c.575 ?6; 2003 c.14 ?324]

 

[bradleyelectric]

Just did a job for Atlantic Broadband this afternoon. someone with a backhoe tore the service off the wall of their shed. Talked to the AHJ and he told me to do the job, they would issue a temp cut in card as a work with with the power company. I actually didn't have to make the call to schedule with the power company. Atlantic Broadband made the call to the power company which is very unusual in this jurisdiction. I didn't have an address for the job, just "It's right off route 40 next to the water tower" The power company wanted a physical address from me. Atlantic told me "Don't worry about it, we have a cell # to call" I figured I wouldn't worry about it and let them make the call. I'll do the paperwork tommorrow.

 

[jrclen]

We as contractors must certify that that the electrical installation meets current codes and may be safely energized. We essentially let them off the hook with written docummentation of such and with all permit information.
The Power Co. is required to re-energize under this rule of Oregon Revised Statutes:

We are still trying to work these bugs out. Not long ago we didn't have permits or inspections except in the cities. So we just filled out an affidavit form for the POCO, and they would look over the service and heat up the entrance.

Then the state pushed permits and inspections, (which I think is great), and they and the POCO got into some sort of pssing contest. The POCO's while doing the CYA dance, took a hard line position and wants that sticker no matter what. It's a pain in the butt.

The state needs some documents like you have there. We can get an emergency inspection, but it is very difficult and time consuming. That said, I've never had a problem with commercial this way, only residential.