who is liable?
- Thread starter hungrycat
- Start date
- Status
bphgravity
Senior Member
- Location
- Florida
Everyone involved from the design professional to the end user and everyone in between holds some responsibility for their actions or lack of actions.
However, this is what the building plans review and inspection is for - to catch these descrepancies and request plan revisions or installation alterations.
However, this is what the building plans review and inspection is for - to catch these descrepancies and request plan revisions or installation alterations.
- Location
- New Jersey
- Occupation
- Journeyman Electrician
If Joe Electrical Contractor installs a violation that was designed by someone else the inspector doesn't really care. It's the EC, who's name is on the permit that will have to remedy the problem. Now, who pays to correct the mistake is another issue.
- Location
- Lockport, IL
- Occupation
- Semi-Retired Electrical Engineer
First, this question is not related in any way to instructors or to classrooms. So I am moving it to the Electrical Contracting topic area.
Secondly, speaking as an engineer, if I make an error and you discover it, I want you to tell me. But to address your specific question, if you build something that violates the code, something that I had designed incorrectly, and if an injury results, then we are both going to end up in court. So don't build it that way. Instead, let's talk about it. Perhaps you are mis-judging the situation, and my design might be correct. Perhaps I did make an error, and I need to reissue the design. But if you build it in way you want to or the way you think it should be done, without first consulting with me, then you would become fully responsible for whatever happens thereafter.
Secondly, speaking as an engineer, if I make an error and you discover it, I want you to tell me. But to address your specific question, if you build something that violates the code, something that I had designed incorrectly, and if an injury results, then we are both going to end up in court. So don't build it that way. Instead, let's talk about it. Perhaps you are mis-judging the situation, and my design might be correct. Perhaps I did make an error, and I need to reissue the design. But if you build it in way you want to or the way you think it should be done, without first consulting with me, then you would become fully responsible for whatever happens thereafter.
I have seen , in California, a "constrution defect lawsuit " where the owner of the house thought the floor was to "bouncy" this snow balled into the windows didn't exactly match with the tinting and on and on. The end came when the owner hired a company to come in and piece by piece take down "and document" every mistake or short comming they found.This started at the roof and went through every trade down to drilling holes 20' deep next to the piers and x-raying them to make sure the correct rebar size and spacing was maintained.When they were finished they suied eveyone even the painter. They bankrupted at least five people. In short if you know something is wrong you are liable if you install it . I have told home owners I will not turn a wall sconce over if the arrow on the inside says "up'' it goes up.Unless they can prove to me it is right I would be conservitive.
Most engineers put weasel clauses in their specs that require the installation to meet all codes.
I have run into designs that would not meet code and have let the engineers know through the RFI process. (request for information)
Instead for getting a change order for the additional cost to make the installation code compliant, they say that the EC owns it regardless of the the design drawings because of the weasel clause "meet all codes" in the specifications.
I have also seen clauses that say "if there is a discrepancy between the drawings and the specifications than the more expensive will be provided"
I guess this way the premodona engineers will never be wrong.
I have run into designs that would not meet code and have let the engineers know through the RFI process. (request for information)
Instead for getting a change order for the additional cost to make the installation code compliant, they say that the EC owns it regardless of the the design drawings because of the weasel clause "meet all codes" in the specifications.
I have also seen clauses that say "if there is a discrepancy between the drawings and the specifications than the more expensive will be provided"
I guess this way the premodona engineers will never be wrong.
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
Tim,
There are court cases that make the "weasel clause" invaild. It transfers some of the design to the electrcial contractor and unless the contractor has a PE on staff, he is not permitted to design.
Don
There are court cases that make the "weasel clause" invaild. It transfers some of the design to the electrcial contractor and unless the contractor has a PE on staff, he is not permitted to design.
Don
hardworkingstiff
Senior Member
- Location
- Wilmington, NC
Often it's the one with the best lawyer gets to pass the liability to the other party.
Another scenario is the one with the deepest pockets gets the liability. (That's why they hire the best lawyers).
Another scenario is the one with the deepest pockets gets the liability. (That's why they hire the best lawyers).
charlie tuna
Senior Member
- Location
- Florida
"liability" is the question. each case could be different in the court system. yes, there are clauses and words in the contracts that point in both directions and can be misguided and misinterpitated. i always believed in CYA communications in writing when advising a gc-engineer or architect. i have only gone to court two times in 25 years but this type of communication removed me of the "liability" of the issue!
i had one job that involved a major stock exchange company and the engineer did not include dedicated circuits to over a hundred computer work stations and other sensitive electronic equipment. i bid the job "as per plans and specifications" and got the job. i did oversize the raceways to include the dedicated circuits in my bid. at the pre job confrence i approched the engineer (privately) and explained the need for dedicated circuits. loudly and very unprofessionally - he spoke out and stated "i'll design it - you follow the plans and install it "as such"". i was upset - and did what i was told.
two years later, i was called to this jobsite for a meeting with the tenant and the same engineer. the tenant had called the meeting and had discovered, due to major data equipment problems, that they needed dedicated circuits that were not installed. i had my "as built" and "record" drawings with me. the engineer started the meeting explaining how "i" had screwed up and then rolled out a set of plans and showed the tenant his drawings and they showed dedicated circuits!!! he had changed the plans!!! i wanted to jump across the confrence table and choke this guy!!! then i rolled both the "record" set and "as built" sets out and asked if he remembered our pre construction meeting discussion? he denied it!!! the real kicker was --- on his drawings it was very obvious that someone had "hand drawn" the extra slashes on the raceways to indicate the needed dedicated neutrals. he then told the tenant he would need my plans to review the problem. i told him the only time he would see my plans again would be in court!!!
we ended up installing the neutrals by setting up enough extention cords each morning to allow normal tenant functions while we re-pulled through the oversized(thank goodness) raceways. this was a very large and old engineering firm --- about two years later the went belly up!!!
i have used many "speed memo" pads communicating with gc's,engineers and architects and they worked for me!!! they know the communication is documented and act on it..
i had one job that involved a major stock exchange company and the engineer did not include dedicated circuits to over a hundred computer work stations and other sensitive electronic equipment. i bid the job "as per plans and specifications" and got the job. i did oversize the raceways to include the dedicated circuits in my bid. at the pre job confrence i approched the engineer (privately) and explained the need for dedicated circuits. loudly and very unprofessionally - he spoke out and stated "i'll design it - you follow the plans and install it "as such"". i was upset - and did what i was told.
two years later, i was called to this jobsite for a meeting with the tenant and the same engineer. the tenant had called the meeting and had discovered, due to major data equipment problems, that they needed dedicated circuits that were not installed. i had my "as built" and "record" drawings with me. the engineer started the meeting explaining how "i" had screwed up and then rolled out a set of plans and showed the tenant his drawings and they showed dedicated circuits!!! he had changed the plans!!! i wanted to jump across the confrence table and choke this guy!!! then i rolled both the "record" set and "as built" sets out and asked if he remembered our pre construction meeting discussion? he denied it!!! the real kicker was --- on his drawings it was very obvious that someone had "hand drawn" the extra slashes on the raceways to indicate the needed dedicated neutrals. he then told the tenant he would need my plans to review the problem. i told him the only time he would see my plans again would be in court!!!
we ended up installing the neutrals by setting up enough extention cords each morning to allow normal tenant functions while we re-pulled through the oversized(thank goodness) raceways. this was a very large and old engineering firm --- about two years later the went belly up!!!
i have used many "speed memo" pads communicating with gc's,engineers and architects and they worked for me!!! they know the communication is documented and act on it..
- Location
- Massachusetts
I go with a very simple premise.
If I install it I am than liable for it.
If I install it I am than liable for it.
petersonra
Senior Member
- Location
- Northern illinois
- Occupation
- engineer
hungrycat said:
this is not an unusual situation. the engineer does not work for the EC. he ought not to be communicating directly with someone he does not have a contractual relationship with unless it has been approved.
Many GCs have been burned so many times by these communications that go around them that they just will not allow them anymore.
- Location
- Lockport, IL
- Occupation
- Semi-Retired Electrical Engineer
They are not ?weasel clauses.? Engineers (and electricians also, by the way) have two duties. First and foremost is to safeguard the health and safety of the public. The second is to protect the interests of the party (usually the owner) who is paying for our services. We put these ?weasel clauses? into specs in order to protect the owner and the public.tkb said:
That is the right thing to do. No matter how the contract is written, and no matter which party holds the contract with the EC, the owner will eventually be paying the bill. You owe it to the owner to pass on information that relates to code violations and potential cost overruns. Somewhere in the contract language there will be a process for reporting such information, and for requesting instructions on how to proceed.tkb said:
Normally I will overlook grammar and (in this case) spelling errors. But if you are going to insult my sector of the electrical profession, then I would ask that you spell the words correctly. It?s ?prima donna,? and it comes from the Italian for ?first lady.? I would have preferred being called the ?first gentleman,? but I do not know the Italian translation of that phrase.tkb said:
hardworkingstiff
Senior Member
- Location
- Wilmington, NC
charlie b said:
LMAO!
(filler filler)
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
Charlie,
I don't see them that way...I see them as an attempt on the part of the design professional to pass his liability off to the electrical contractor.
Don
I don't see them that way...I see them as an attempt on the part of the design professional to pass his liability off to the electrical contractor.
Don
- Location
- Lockport, IL
- Occupation
- Semi-Retired Electrical Engineer
I, on the other hand, see them as an attempt on the part of the design professional to prevent the installer from avoiding liability, in the event the installer builds something that violates the code. If I designed it wrong, then I'll take my lumps. But if I design it wrong and the installer builds it in that wrong way, then the installer deserves a share of the lumps. I don't want the installer to get by with saying, "well, I knew it was wrong, but I just did what I was told to do, so it's not my fault, and you must pay me extra now to fix it." It is in this manner that the interests of both the owner and the public are being served.don_resqcapt19 said:
- Location
- New Jersey
- Occupation
- Journeyman Electrician
don_resqcapt19 said:
I would agree that in some instances this is the case. For example an engineer does a load calculation for a small building, the EC bids the job and installs it per the plans. Now somewhere down the road it's discovered that the engineer made an error. Certainly a one sentence clause shouldn't indemnify the engineer of any responsibility for the error. It's not the EC's responsibility to check every aspect of the design. If so why would he need an engineer in the first place?
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
Charlie,
How is the electrician expected to catch the mistakes of the design professional...if he/she didn't know how to do it right, there is no reason to expect the electrical contractor to know. If you design it wrong and I don't catch it, that is your problem not mine and I will get an extra to fix it...if not I'll see you in court.
Don
How is the electrician expected to catch the mistakes of the design professional...if he/she didn't know how to do it right, there is no reason to expect the electrical contractor to know. If you design it wrong and I don't catch it, that is your problem not mine and I will get an extra to fix it...if not I'll see you in court.
Don
I'm actually lined up with charlie on this one. (Don't panic charlie!! It's okaydon_resqcapt19 said:
Don -
Some electricians can and do, and have for me. And I like that.
If an EC exibited an attitude like that, why would I think there is any impetus for him to catch any errors? Oh I know, it's the weasel words that make for a double hanging if he can't be bothered to say something. And with the weasel words, it won't be me, it will be the owner that has him dragged into court.don_resqcapt19 said:
So, I would say it is exactly the things you said that are the reason the weasel words get put in the contracts.
carl
- Status