# Hypothetical question



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

The licensed electrician. AHJs and inspectors are held harmless by law.


----------



## elecpatsfan (Oct 1, 2010)

Is there a statue of limitations as to how long EC is liable? In other words if the job was done in '99 and the outside outlet was not GFI protected, as was required in the '99 code, can the EC be held liable if an injury or death occurred in 2010?


----------



## nitro71 (Sep 17, 2009)

elecpatsfan said:


> Is there a statue of limitations as to how long EC is liable? In other words if the job was done in '99 and the outside outlet was not GFI protected, as was required in the '99 code, can the EC be held liable if an injury or death occurred in 2010?


How does the homeowner prove that the GFCI was never installed? You are liable forever for illegal installs. Proving it is another matter.


----------



## Jbird66 (Oct 26, 2010)

Has the EC been contacted to see if he will offer a remedy? 

Some times the easiest solution is a little conversation?

Not knowing the whole story of course but sometimes we are to busy trying to figure out if somebody is on the hook for it rather than just making a call and see if there is not an easy way to work it out. I am sure most reputable EC's will stand up and do the right thing other wise they do not seem to stay in business for a long time.


----------



## william1978 (Sep 21, 2008)

The electrician is responsible.


----------



## Sonny1027 (Mar 20, 2009)

480sparky said:


> The licensed electrician. AHJs and inspectors are held harmless by law.


Thanks 480,

Would you happen to know if that is or could be true for plumbers, hvac and gas fitters?

Thanks again.


----------



## william1978 (Sep 21, 2008)

Sonny1027 said:


> Thanks 480,
> 
> Would you happen to know if that is or could be true for plumbers, hvac and gas fitters?
> 
> Thanks again.


 It would be that way for them also.


----------



## Bkessler (Feb 14, 2007)

Maybe if there is a history of this inspector not doing his job..........?


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

Once the job is inspected, the EC is off the hook... IMO.

Who knows if someone else played _electrician_ and caused the problems??

The electrical inspection certifies that ALL electrical work is done to "code" and the building is safe from electrical defect.

That is why an electrical inspection is needed for Certificate Of Occupancy. (CO).. which is needed before people can move in or using the building for business.


----------



## Shockdoc (Mar 4, 2010)

Sounds like a ****ty electrician......Can't say ive ever had those problems.


----------



## Southeast Power (Jan 18, 2009)

I carry installed products insurance. I would have to assume it would cover something like this but, I have never roped a house. 
I wouldn't want that contractor back in my house if that is the kind of work they do.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Black4Truck said:


> Once the job is inspected, the EC is off the hook... IMO..


Not really. Here's one prime example:

Link #1.
Link #2.
Link #3.
Link #4.


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

480sparky said:


> Not really. Here's one prime example:
> 
> Link #1.
> Link #2.
> ...



That has to be the exception rather than the rule.

Having galvanized pipe for a pool light is a whole different animal than a missing GFI and staples too tight...


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Black4Truck said:


> That has to be the exception rather than the rule.
> 
> Having galvanized pipe for a pool light is a whole different animal than a missing GFI and staples too tight...



Yet they passed inspection.:whistling2:


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

480sparky said:


> Yet they passed inspection.:whistling2:



The galvanized pipe is as blatant violation as you could find.. kind of hard to make excuses for that.. :no:


----------



## Sonny1027 (Mar 20, 2009)

*Hammurabi says:
*​*
*​*229*​ ​ If a builder build a house for some one, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built fall in and kill its owner, then that builder shall be put to death. 
​ *230*​ ​ If it kill the son of the owner the son of that builder shall be put to death. 
​ *231*​ ​ If it kill a slave of the owner, then he shall pay slave for slave to the owner of the house. 
​ *232*​ ​ If it ruin goods, he shall make compensation for all that has been ruined, and inasmuch as he did not construct properly this house which he built and it fell, he shall re-erect the house from his own means. 
​ *233*​ ​ If a builder build a house for some one, even though he has not yet completed it; if then the walls seem toppling, the builder must make the walls solid from his own means.


----------



## Shockdoc (Mar 4, 2010)

Black4Truck said:


> The galvanized pipe is as blatant violation as you could find.. kind of hard to make excuses for that.. :no:


I have never seen gal on the pool light end. Another cheap miserable electrician. I'm only cheap to a point as in drilling circuits on angles to save wire, then comes common sense.


----------



## lordlondis (Oct 28, 2010)

I wonder if the ec in that instance could feasibly sue the inspector for passing it?


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

lordlondis said:


> I wonder if the ec in that instance could feasibly sue the inspector for passing it?


Sure he can. 
































He just can't win.


----------



## Shockdoc (Mar 4, 2010)

lordlondis said:


> I wonder if the ec in that instance could feasibly sue the inspector for passing it?


Then it would become a typical NY court circus.


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

480sparky said:


> The licensed electrician. AHJs and inspectors are held harmless by law.


I agree.


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

elecpatsfan said:


> Is there a statue of limitations as to how long EC is liable? In other words if the job was done in '99 and the outside outlet was not GFI protected, as was required in the '99 code, can the EC be held liable if an injury or death occurred in 2010?



No limitation.


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

Bob Badger said:


> I agree.


It's early.. you still have to get warmed up.. :laughing::thumbup::laughing:


----------



## Jlarson (Jun 28, 2009)

480sparky said:


> The licensed electrician. AHJs and inspectors are held harmless by law.


+1 on that


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

Black4Truck said:


> Once the job is inspected, the EC is off the hook... IMO.


Absolutely 100% false.



> Who knows if someone else played _electrician_ and caused the problems??


Those issues would have to be decided by the courts but again the inspection does not let the EC off the hook.



> The electrical inspection certifies that ALL electrical work is done to "code" and the building is safe from electrical defect.


Nope.

If you went looking for the actual laws they will be worded with wiggle room.



> That is why an electrical inspection is needed for Certificate Of Occupancy. (CO).. which is needed before people can move in or using the building for business.


Yep, you do need a CO but even the CO does not let the contractors off the hook.

Everything you have every installed can come back to haunt you.


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

Bob Badger said:


> No limitation.


But that goes back to the old saying.. "You can sue anyone for anything"

I was always told the inspection is my release from liability.

I have no control over a job that is completed and inspected..

Why should I be liable for something "Johnny" down the street does for the HO?? :blink:


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Black4Truck said:


> But that goes back to the old saying.. "You can sue anyone for anything"
> 
> I was always told the inspection is my release from liability.
> 
> ...


Sounds like you need to find another line of work.


----------



## nitro71 (Sep 17, 2009)

WA has even documented in it's Electrical Currents publication by the state that inspectors are not responsible for quality or for contractors meeting code. They are only responsible for what they see.


----------



## raider1 (Jan 22, 2007)

Black4Truck said:


> I was always told the inspection is my release from liability.


Absolutely incorrect. You are never released from liability for the installation being done to code. 




> Why should I be liable for something "Johnny" down the street does for the HO?? :blink:


Your not liable for others work just your own.

Chris


----------



## raider1 (Jan 22, 2007)

nitro71 said:


> WA has even documented in it's Electrical Currents publication by the state that inspectors are not responsible for quality or for contractors meeting code. They are only responsible for what they see.


Correct, that is called governmental immunity.

Now in Utah if an inspector sees a violation acknowledges it is a violation but passes the installation anyway then they can be found guilty of negligence.

Chris


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

Black4Truck said:


> I have no control over a job that is completed and inspected.


No one has said you do. 



> Why should I be liable for something "Johnny" down the street does for the HO?? :blink:


You shouldn't be, but that has not been what we have been saying.

What we are saying is if I was to do non-code compliant work even if it passes inspection I am liable for that work forever.

I am not liable for what someone might do after I am gone.

Obviously the more years that pass the less likely it can be reasonably be proven who did the work.

But do not forget the burden of proof in civil court is much lower than in criminal court.


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

480sparky said:


> Sounds like you need to find another line of work.


Why is that?? :blink:

I am going by the information that was told to me.... not something I have ever had to deal with in real life.

All along it has always been.. "get the job inspected so you are covered"

So now it turns out that inspection really does nothing for me except cost money..


----------



## Jlarson (Jun 28, 2009)

Black4Truck said:


> So now it turns out that inspection really does nothing for me except cost money..


Yeah pretty much.


----------



## nitro71 (Sep 17, 2009)

Pretty much. Costs the customer money and they don't get much in return.


----------



## raider1 (Jan 22, 2007)

Black4Truck said:


> Why is that?? :blink:
> 
> I am going by the information that was told to me.... not something I have ever had to deal with in real life.
> 
> All along it has always been.. "get the job inspected so you are covered"


So you have always thought that the inspector assumed the liability for the project that you wired?



> So now it turns out that inspection really does nothing for me except cost money..


It gives you an extra set of eyes to look over the project and hopefully catch any code violations you may have missed.



Jlarson said:


> Yeah pretty much.





nitro71 said:


> Pretty much. Costs the customer money and they don't get much in return.


The customer gets the added return, if the inspector is competent and doing their job, of the piece of mind that they have a safe and code compliant installation.

Think of the inspector as an safety control agent of the owner/customer.

Also inspectors that are fair will level the playing field for contractors and make sure that everyone is wiring up to code.

Chris


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

Black4Truck said:


> All along it has always been.. "get the job inspected so you are covered"


If you don't get it inspected you have broken the law.

If you don't get it inspected and something happens you do not have a chance of defending yourself.


> So now it turns out that inspection really does nothing for me except cost money..


It was never supposed to, it is for the customer not the contractor and it should not be costing you anything, I include permit costs in my estimate. 

If I walk into our estimating dept they have a whole bookshelf full of the permit fees for all the local cities and towns so those costs can be figured into the bid. When you are doing a couple million dollar job the permit is going to be in the thousands.


----------



## nitro71 (Sep 17, 2009)

raider1 said:


> Think of the inspector as an safety control agent of the owner/customer.
> 
> Also inspectors that are fair will level the playing field for contractors and make sure that everyone is wiring up to code.
> 
> Chris


But the fact is that they don't in WA. They let large EC's run rampant. They don't inspect very much and don't earn their keep. Whole inspection department is about making money for the state. There is no value added, besides seeing gross violations to a install, by getting it inspected in WA.


----------



## Jlarson (Jun 28, 2009)

Bob Badger said:


> If I walk into our estimating dept they have a whole bookshelf full of the permit fees for all the local cities and towns so those costs can be figured into the bid. When you are doing a couple million dollar job the permit is going to be in the thousands.


Yeah, permits add up on big jobs.


----------



## etb (Sep 8, 2010)

I have nothing constructive to add here. But....

on the second link 480 posted, I had to laugh at this:



> After talking three hours, the *seven-woman, one-man jury* found Central Electric Co. breached its contract with the city.


The ratio seemed odd to me, as did the reason they reported that fact.


----------



## high leg (Feb 2, 2008)

You can't hold the government responsible on anything. There are lawyers who teach individuals on how to sue E.C.'s. And, now in some states. The individual can be held responsible in civil court.


----------



## acrwc10 (Jan 28, 2007)

Black4Truck said:


> But that goes back to the old saying.. "You can sue anyone for anything"
> 
> I was always told the inspection is my release from liability.
> 
> ...


 In the same way, Why should the inspector be liable for something you have done ????????? That doesn't even make sense, An inspection is a "spot check" in a way, imagine you going to a job that someone else had spent weeks (big job) roughing in, you have never been there before, could you spend less then 20 to 30 minutes (average alotted time for an inspection) looking at it and say, "it's good, and no code violations exist, I will now accept all liability for his work, even if he changes or adds something after I have left." :blink: 



Black4Truck said:


> Why is that?? :blink:
> 
> I am going by the information that was told to me.... not something I have ever had to deal with in real life.
> 
> ...


 If you ever get the chance, ride allong with the inspector for the day (many building dept. will allow this) you will be shocked at how bad some work is done, and how ignorant some installers are. That is why you need inspections, because of all the HACKS that do crap work. I see guys every day that think they are the smartest, and best at what they do, they don't even have a code book or know how to find a code section. The only way they learn anything is when an inspector teaches it to them.



nitro71 said:


> But the fact is that they don't in WA. They let large EC's run rampant. They don't inspect very much and don't earn their keep. Whole inspection department is about making money for the state. There is no value added, besides seeing gross violations to a install, by getting it inspected in WA.


 Not true, building deptments are required to be non-proffet by law. They have to pay their own overhead but they DO NOT make money for the "general fund". 



Jlarson said:


> Yeah, permits add up on big jobs.


Very true, but do you have any idea how much time is spent on inspections, plan reviews, city meetings, and dealing with all sorts of other issues that come along with large projects? Not to mention the "emergency" phone calls from the contractors on these jobs where they need something or another inspected ASAP, so the inspector has to squeeze that into his/her day. Also the fee's for large jobs are based on the over all cost of construction (in most jurisdictions) And I can assure you they grossly under state the true cost on the applications.


----------



## Shockdoc (Mar 4, 2010)

acrwc10 said:


> In the same way, Why should the inspector be liable for something you have done ????????? That doesn't even make sense, An inspection is a "spot check" in a way, imagine you going to a job that someone else had spent weeks (big job) roughing in, you have never been there before, could you spend less then 20 to 30 minutes (average alotted time for an inspection) looking at it and say, "it's good, and no code violations exist, I will now accept all liability for his work, even if he changes or adds something after I have left." :blink:
> 
> If you ever get the chance, ride allong with the inspector for the day (many building dept. will allow this) you will be shocked at how bad some work is done, and how ignorant some installers are. That is why you need inspections, because of all the HACKS that do crap work. I see guys every day that think they are the smartest, and best at what they do, they don't even have a code book or know how to find a code section. The only way they learn anything is when an inspector teaches it to them.
> 
> ...


Southampton, NY inspection for a small addition- $450, they range to as much as $1500. Private inspection agencies are far cheaper by all means but the one good thing about Southampton, expect an extremely thorough inspection, all tees crossed and i s dotted workwise. It makes hack contractors clean up thier mess.


----------



## Al13Cu29 (Nov 2, 2010)

raider1 said:


> Think of the inspector as an safety control agent of the owner/customer.
> 
> Chris


I always see the Inspector as a safety control agent of the district s/he is working for. While they can be seen (and advertized) as being there for the citizen, they are really there for the safety level the district wants to maintain.



raider1 said:


> Correct, that is called governmental immunity.
> 
> Now in Utah if an inspector sees a violation acknowledges it is a violation but passes the installation anyway then they can be found guilty of negligence.
> 
> Chris


I sure this is true everywhere. The Inspector would have a share of the blame, but not the district s/he works for.

I have "heard" of Inspectors being call in to count and say "I can not see everything in the time I am given", and have this be OK with everyone of the count, thus protecting the Inspector and district.

The actual inspection is easy for them. They can tell right away if it is a good job or not. If it is good job, then they look for thinks that are important to them (GFCI, Spacing, nail plates, etc.). If lots of things jump out from the first few steps onto the job site, time to look harder at the EC and ask questions.


----------



## Al13Cu29 (Nov 2, 2010)

Black4Truck said:


> All along it has always been.. "get the job inspected so you are covered"


(Just wanted to add this with the other responders.)

Yes you are covered;
In that you have a permit to do the job and had the work looked at by a knowledgeable Inspector of the district.

Should something do go wrong in the future, you are covered for: having a permit and having an inspection. Now just make sure you installed the correct materials and the correct installation method, for the areas the Inspector did not look at, then you have a good chance to defend yourself. 
Having a permit does help in a small way, in that you had the work done in the open as opposed to hiding from the district. 
Without a permit, you really have no chance of defending yourself, no matter how good and careful a job you did.



Al13Cu29 said:


> I have "heard" of Inspectors being call in to count and say "I can not see everything in the time I am given", and have this be OK with everyone of the count, thus protecting the Inspector and district.


This opinion is worth what you paid for.


----------



## Al13Cu29 (Nov 2, 2010)

Originally Posted by *nitro71*  
_But the fact is that they don't in WA. They let large EC's run rampant. They don't inspect very much and don't earn their keep. Whole inspection department is about making money for the state. There is no value added, besides seeing gross violations to a install, by getting it inspected in WA._



acrwc10 said:


> Not true, building deptments are required to be non-proffet by law. They have to pay their own overhead but they DO NOT make money for the "general fund".


Had to laugh at this. :laughing:

Here in Colorado last year, the Governor needed more money (like everywhere else), so he raised and added fees/tax on everything; driver's license, car registration, food tax(new), Utility Use fee, Electrician license, EC license(from $30 to $210), etc.
After he was done, he said "Good news, I will not need to raise the state income tax rate." 

Now the State still needs more money, I wonder what he'll raise this time? :whistling2:


----------



## crosport (Apr 4, 2010)

Only a percentage of any good contractors jobs are actually inspected(at least here in B.C.)Does that mean the inspector is liable for permits he signed off on even after not physically being on site.No! It says clearly on the inspection request that work is accepted on the basis of the contractor qualification.Here in B.C. in order to pull permits we need a contractors license,A,B or C level and a $10,000.00 bond.The bond is meant for the e.c.to perform work to code.Too many infractions and good luck getting bonded again.


----------



## acrwc10 (Jan 28, 2007)

Al13Cu29 said:


> Originally Posted by *nitro71*
> _But the fact is that they don't in WA. They let large EC's run rampant. They don't inspect very much and don't earn their keep. Whole inspection department is about making money for the state. There is no value added, besides seeing gross violations to a install, by getting it inspected in WA._
> 
> 
> ...


Like I said before, The building dept. is not allowed to turn a proffit. By law. It is very expensive to run a building dept. or any other bussiness of that size. 
I notice on your list of "Fee Hikes" that Building Permits is not on your list. Gee could that be because It is not legal ? 
Your comment and your rebuttal are Both not true. If your going to get all worked up about something at least get your facts right. :laughing::laughing::laughing:


----------



## Al13Cu29 (Nov 2, 2010)

acrwc10 said:


> Like I said before, The building dept. is not allowed to turn a proffit. By law. It is very expensive to run a building dept. or any other bussiness of that size.
> I notice on your list of "Fee Hikes" that Building Permits is not on your list. Gee could that be because It is not legal ?
> Your comment and your rebuttal are Both not true. If your going to get all worked up about something at least get your facts right.


Yeah you’re right! But then again there was way too many... WAY TOO MANY... to list the entire fee hikes.
 

So here, I'll add one more to the list, "building permit fee". Place it after "EC license(from $30 to $210)", but before "etc". Like this *** "EC license(from $30 to $210), building permit fee, etc." *** (Please notice the "etc.", there is way too many... WAY TOO MANY... to list every fee increases and new taxes. Feel free to add some of your own.)

Didn't say anything about it being illegal. May have been that it needed to be raised some years ago and now getting around to it. Or the Governor decided not to use as much of the "general fund" to support the building dept., etc. (Please notice the "etc.", there is way too many... WAY TOO MANY... to list every possible reason why. Feel free to add some of your own.)

** Your comment and your rebuttal are Both not true. If your going to get all worked up about something at least get your facts right. **
:001_huh: What :001_huh:... than something is very very wrong. I can remember the Governor's announcements, the media's report of the announcements, the grumbles from the public over the fee increases , the media's reports of the grumbles from the public over the fee increases, etc. (Please notice the "etc.", there is way too many... WAY TOO MANY... to list every step of what I can remember. Feel free to add some of your own.) While my memory and facts are "Both not true", (possible, I am an old man) I can and will continue to say, "these fees sure went up a bit since the Governor made those announcements."

Some poeple ... :no:


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

crosport said:


> Only a percentage of any good contractors jobs are actually inspected(at least here in B.C.)Does that mean the inspector is liable for permits he signed off on even after not physically being on site.No! It says clearly on the inspection request that work is accepted on the basis of the contractor qualification.Here in B.C. in order to pull permits we need a contractors license,A,B or C level and a $10,000.00 bond.The bond is meant for the e.c.to perform work to code.Too many infractions and good luck getting bonded again.


I WOULD NOT sign off on something I have not inspected, that is morally, ethically and just plain WRONG.


----------



## Shockdoc (Mar 4, 2010)

brian john said:


> I WOULD NOT sign off on something I have not inspected, that is morally ethically and just plain WRONG.


I cover a couple friends with their work, I either go in as their partner or they pay me and I check things out before I submit paper. I prefer doing it with them so i can lay it out the way i like.


----------



## acrwc10 (Jan 28, 2007)

Al13Cu29 said:


> Yeah you’re right! But then again there was way too many... WAY TOO MANY... to list the entire fee hikes.
> 
> 
> So here, I'll add one more to the list, "building permit fee". Place it after "EC license(from $30 to $210)", but before "etc". Like this *** "EC license(from $30 to $210), building permit fee, etc." *** (Please notice the "etc.", there is way too many... WAY TOO MANY... to list every fee increases and new taxes. Feel free to add some of your own.)
> ...


In your oringinal Post you stated that the fee's were raised just to generate money for the state. This is misleading at best. The truth is more like the state is no longer going to subsidise the building dept. so they need to pay for there own costs. That is far from a tax hike to pay for the govenors new staff members.


----------



## Al13Cu29 (Nov 2, 2010)

acrwc10 said:


> In your oringinal Post you stated that the fee's were raised just to generate money for the state.
> True! Now you got it! That's what the Governor said, too!
> 
> This is misleading at best.
> ...


You are misleading


----------



## acrwc10 (Jan 28, 2007)

Al13Cu29 said:


> You are misleading


The truth is more like the state is no longer going to subsidise the building dept. so they need to pay for there own costs.
I don't know, ask them, since you care so much. Same as before, higher fees and taxes.

That is far from a tax hike to pay for the govenors new staff members. There you go again, putting your words into other's post. Never said anything about 'new staff members'. As for taxes, sales tax rate has went up and a new tax on food has been added.

Your the one whining about the cost of a permit, and every other thing under the sun, Maybe next time you'll vote for a better Governor. :laughing::laughing::laughing: Typical, complain about things but don't know what is really going on, you must be a Democrat


----------



## Al13Cu29 (Nov 2, 2010)

acrwc10 said:


> The truth is more like the state is no longer going to subsidise the building dept. so they need to pay for there own costs.
> I don't know, ask them, since you care so much. Same as before, higher fees and taxes.
> 
> That is far from a tax hike to pay for the govenors new staff members. There you go again, putting your words into other's post. Never said anything about 'new staff members'. As for taxes, sales tax rate has went up and a new tax on food has been added.
> ...


Funny how that works. I state a Fact of what the Governor did, and made a joke (a poor one, sure) at what the Governor said. Someone comes along and tells "your wrong and misleading" at me.  
Very "politician" of you.


----------



## acrwc10 (Jan 28, 2007)

What Ever. :thumbsup: If thats humor, keep your day job.


----------



## Al13Cu29 (Nov 2, 2010)

acrwc10 said:


> What Ever. :thumbsup: If thats humor, keep your day job.


Thats right! :thumbup:

You got it, again! :thumbup:

There is enough going on out in the field, so a humor post is just that - Humor. :jester: 
Men really are that simple. There is no hidden meaning between the words.


----------



## wayne g (Nov 28, 2010)

Based on your hypothetical the AHJ and or Electrical Inspector would have to be negligent in there job doing and I can't see that happening in this case.


----------

