You touch it you own it????or do you

Status
Not open for further replies.
electricmanscott

electricmanscott

Senior Member
Location
Boston, MA
A thread on another board has touched a nerve with me. Where do you feel that your responsibilty ends when working on electrical systems? My feeling, and I believe Mass law at least, backs me. I am only responsible for what I work on. End of story.

Thoughts?

I don't know if it is appropriate to link to the other board here. I can if it is ok or pm me for the link. I might need the backup. ;)
 
Ultimately.....after the dust settles....it will be the preponderance of the evidence that dictates whether you are responsible or not.

This evidence will be decided by a jury of 12 regular people who've been "baffled" for hours by Mr. "Slick" Shyster, Esq. Attorney at Law.

I've sat on civil juries before, and believe me, strange things can happen.

So....the answer is....there is no clear answer.

Just my opinion
steve
 
I think Steve has hit upon an ultimate, through regrettable truth: we are not the ones who decide where our responsibility ends. We all have a duty to protect the safety of the public in general, and of our clients in particular. If we were ?in the building,? and if something bad happens at a later time, it becomes likely that some other person(s) will decide who is responsible.

I think the best we can do is to make sure that what we touch is left in a safe and code-compliant condition. I also think that if we see something unsafe or non-compliant, we have a duty to inform our clients. I believe that should be done in writing, and if possible we should get a signed acknowledgement. If they choose not to have us (or someone else) fix the problem, we at least can stand on our own principles, by saying, ?I tried my best to let them know there was a danger.?
 
electricmanscott said:
I don't know if it is appropriate to link to the other board here. I can if it is ok or pm me for the link. I might need the backup. ;)
Click to expand...
I don't see an issue with posting the link - if it's not appropriate, it can be deleted after the fact.
 
This same general question was just posed on another board this afternoon, so it must be a hot topic. I replied:

I think the unwritten rule is, "the last guy that touched it, owns it". If I give my inspector's the head's up on something existing that I've found that's hazardous, and it's not in my scope of work (contractually), they'll order it to be done so that it will be in my scope of work. It's nice that some inspector's will get your back that way. The problem still exists that if there's no one compelling a person to have work done, I just can't up and do it just because I see it needs done. Rock and hard place situation.
Click to expand...
 
mdshunk said:
If I give my inspector's the head's up on something existing that I've found that's hazardous, and it's not in my scope of work (contractually), they'll order it to be done so that it will be in my scope of work.
Click to expand...
Does it get sticky when the customer refuses to pay for the increased scope?
 
LarryFine said:
Does it get sticky when the customer refuses to pay for the increased scope?
Click to expand...
No. A scope change generates a change order. Change orders that result from inspector's orders are usually pretty easy to get signed. One version of my bigger style contract already lays out the labor rates and markups for inspector ordered additional work that is not included in the contract. They're basically signing an open ended change order when they sign that version of the contract, with regard to any additional work ordered by the inspector.

Any time I can present additional work that is being ordered by the inspector, rather than something I forgot or miscalculated on, that's a good thing for me. Takes the burden off of me, and puts it on the inspector. They're used to taking heat. I'm not.
 
our company has a policy that we try to look at everything we can when at a clients house or business. we then write it all down, getting a signature from them, to acknowledge they have been notified. we then complie estimates for the work.

if they choose to do it good, if not, well, we have proof that they were warned and given reasonable solutions to rectify the problem.
 
I did a job in a large 12 story high rise, Repaired the GFP, Phase, Blown Fuse protection in one of several switchboards. A few weeks later the adjacent switchboard faulted due to a busway failure.

Within two days I received notice from a law firm naming me (our company) responsible. I met on site with all parties and explained what we did and what happened, the lawyers and the forensic engineers for the insurance company shrugged their shoulders and said guess it was not your fault.
 
mdshunk said:
That's nice. Name you in a suit before the forensics were done. That customer's attorney was a real class act. :mad:
Click to expand...

Get use to that, the $$$ generate a lot of lawsuits. Those attorneys got paid for at least a day of work....think about that, and if Bryan was not smart enough, maybe a freebee to the job.
 
Name you in a suit before the forensics were done. That customer's attorney was a real class act.
Click to expand...
Not unusual...we were named in one after a person tripped on a lenght of conduit that was left on a walkway on a conveyor. We were on the job at the time the suit was filed, but the accident happened almost a year before we were on the jobsite.
Don
 
Oh I had to call my lawyer, cost me time and money. This was not the first lawsuit I have been named in.


Never been my fault but always cost me money.
 
electricmanscott said:
A thread on another board has touched a nerve with me. Where do you feel that your responsibilty ends when working on electrical systems? My feeling, and I believe Mass law at least, backs me. I am only responsible for what I work on.
Click to expand...

I'm an inspector, but I suspect conditions to be quite similar with electrical contractors....The bulk of negligence I see in the field when asked to follow behind incompetent inspectors/installers, or in the courtroom when asked to appear as an expert witness, is "gross" negligence. To explain:

"Incompetence" essentially means an inspector/installer doesn't know what he or she is doing. "Simple" negligence means that an inspector/installer has overlooked something that competent inspectors/installers would have recognized. "Gross" negligence means the inspector/installer has actually recognized a violation or safety hazard and purposely overlooked it. "Criminal" negligence means the inspector/installer has overlooked it for illegal reasons, such as a bribe. :)
 
I cannot stress this point enough.
I am responsible only for my work period.
Click to expand...

We all say and feel that should be the way, but in the end if it ever comes to that a few lawyers in a room will decide what is what. I have been involved in several cases as a defendent and as as expert witness. Few ever went to trial.
 
** Malicious Prosecution **

** Malicious Prosecution **

For those that have had to call upon their hired guns in a shot-gun blast style lawsuit, mention the term "Malicious Prosecution" to your atty ...it may not apply to all States or all events, but sometimes the mere mentioning of that phrase by a "defendant" can send the plantiff into a sprial.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top