# Electricians charged in electrocution of man at southwest Houston hotel pool



## flyboy

This is over 5 years ago. Although I couldn't find it, I believe there was a thread on this.


----------



## jelhill

MechanicalDVR said:


> *Just came across this:*
> 
> *Electricians charged in electrocution of man at southwest Houston hotel pool*
> 
> 
> By Katie McCall
> HOUSTON -- Two electricians have been charged after a man was electrocuted in a southwest Houston hotel pool.
> The incident happened August 31 at the Westchase Hilton and Towers on Westheimer.
> 
> Raul Hernandez, 27 was electrocuted while saving his mother and brother, who said they also felt shocks while in the water. Hernandez collapsed as soon as he got out of the pool and went into cardiac arrest. He was taken off life support on September 6 and died.
> 
> "He was the positive male role model in my life," said Hernandez's brother, Carlos Hernandez. "He always did put other people's needs before his own."
> 
> On Friday, electricians Jason Joseph Gorczyca, 35, and James Ray Pyle, 34, were charged with criminally negligent homicide, a state jail felony that is punishable by as much as two years in prison and a $10,000 fine. Authorities say the two failed to install a device that would have prevented the electrical charge that killed Hernandez.
> 
> "There was no GFCI protector, a ground fault circuit interrupter, which would have shut down the electricity immediately. So that was not there, and that's one of the fundamental reasons why the electricians have been charged," said John Thomas, the civil lawyer representing Hernandez's family.
> 
> "Had they done it, then in all likelihood when there was a problem in that pool, this individual who was killed would not have died," Harris County prosecutor Bill Exley said.
> 
> The family has also filed a wrongful death civil lawsuit against Hilton and the Brown Electric Company, the contracted company for the hotel, to achieve one goal.
> 
> "To make sure that this doesn't happen again," Carlos Hernandez said.
> 
> Hilton has declined to comment on the case because of the pending litigation, but did offer condolences to the Hernandez family.
> 
> Bond for each electrician has been set at $5,000.
> 
> https://abc13.com/archive/9318758/https%3A%2F%2Fabc13.com%2Farchive%2F9318758%2F?fbclid=IwAR2GNSN4EOb_zg807Zzw565yE-BuwqQUIwrFyeCm7LTSa7ZHIr5M-l9VnU0



Why I always refused to work on pool lighting. I know it can be done safely but I still cringe when I see it.


----------



## 99cents

How do you know they didn’t GFCI it? A clown handyman could have monkeyed with it after the fact.


----------



## Martine

99cents said:


> How do you know they didn’t GFCI it? A clown handyman could have monkeyed with it after the fact.


the hotel probably have an itemized bill and if the GFCI aren't on there, it's pretty damning for them. You're right though, someone could have played around with stuff afterwards


----------



## splatz

99cents said:


> How do you know they didn’t GFCI it? A clown handyman could have monkeyed with it after the fact.


I have seen this with GFCIs many times. I have had to explain many times how replacing a GFCI with a non-GFCI because of nuisance trips is like taking the battery and power out of the smoke detector because it's making noise. 

I have seen it done by the original installing electrician to quiet complaints, by service electricians, and by handymen and maintenance men.


----------



## drsparky

Follow up.
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/ne...les-in-pool-electrocution-lawsuit-6227441.php


----------



## CoolWill

I'm not sure why line voltage pool lights were ever a thing. If you're going to do them, it would be in your own best interest to layer your GFI protection. Put two dead-face GFIs in series, AND use a GF breaker.


----------



## MechanicalDVR

flyboy said:


> This is over 5 years ago. Although I couldn't find it, I believe there was a thread on this.


It didn't sound familiar when I read it or I wouldn't have posted it.


----------



## Wiresmith

CoolWill said:


> I'm not sure why line voltage pool lights were ever a thing. If you're going to do them, it would be in your own best interest to layer your GFI protection. Put two dead-face GFIs in series, AND use a GF breaker.


equipotential bonding is the first and more robust safety.


----------



## flyboy

Line voltage fed wet-niche lights should be illegal. And any electrican installing one should have electrodes hooked up to his penis and be electrocuted.


----------



## MechanicalDVR

flyboy said:


> Line voltage fed wet-niche lights should be illegal. And any electrican installing one should have electrodes hooked up to his penis and be electrocuted.


Wow, so harsh!


----------



## flyboy

MechanicalDVR said:


> Wow, so harsh!


That's how I roll.


----------



## MTW

flyboy said:


> Line voltage fed wet-niche lights should be illegal. And any electrican installing one should have electrodes hooked up to his penis and be electrocuted.


 story bro.


----------



## joebanana

So, this county doesn't have building inspectors? Any decent inspector would have caught that little omission right off. What I want to know is why two electricians were charged? It only takes one to not install a GFI.


----------



## Mulder

flyboy said:


> Line voltage fed wet-niche lights should be illegal. And any electrican installing one should have electrodes hooked up to his penis and be electrocuted.


That's misogynistic. An electrician can be a woman. :devil3:


----------



## flyboy

Mulder said:


> That's misogynistic. An electrician can be a woman. :devil3:


A woman wouldn't be that stupid to put 120V within 10 ft of a swimming pool.


----------



## MechanicalDVR

Mulder said:


> That's misogynistic. An electrician can be a woman. :devil3:


As an owner he hasn't attended sensitivity training!


----------



## CoolWill

flyboy said:


> A woman wouldn't be that stupid to put 120V within 10 ft of a swimming pool.



Racist.


----------



## MechanicalDVR

flyboy said:


> A woman wouldn't be that stupid to put 120V within 10 ft of a swimming pool.


Hmm, the same type people that have been known to have dropped a blow dryer in the tub they are in occasionally?


----------



## 99cents

No permit, no inspection, pool lighting. These two should be in jail.


----------



## CoolWill

99cents said:


> No permit, no inspection, pool lighting. These two should be in jail.



Honestly, I've done pool lighting without a permit or inspection. That's not their major crime. They're crime is being criminally stupid. They should be worse than in jail.


----------



## 99cents

CoolWill said:


> Honestly, I've done pool lighting without a permit or inspection. That's not their major crime. They're crime is being criminally stupid. They should be worse than in jail.


I guess the reason for permits and inspections is an extra layer of safety. We know what we’re doing but a clown may not. That means you and I are subject to the same rules and regs as a clown.

In terms of pool lighting, I would want an inspection for no other reason than to have another set of eyes review my work. Like someone else said, I might even turn down the work. I have only done one pool and I was happy to have the inspector pay close attention. I don’t know if I want to do another one. We’re not in a climate where there is a pool in every back yard.


----------



## CoolWill

99cents said:


> I guess the reason for permits and inspections is an extra layer of safety. We know what we’re doing but a clown may not. That means you and I are subject to the same rules and regs as a clown.
> 
> In terms of pool lighting, I would want an inspection for no other reason than to have another set of eyes review my work. Like someone else said, I might even turn down the work. I have only done one pool and I was happy to have the inspector pay close attention. I don’t know if I want to do another one. We’re not in a climate where there is a pool in every back yard.



I agree with the sentiment. It doesn't always work out that way, but I get it. If you really wanted to have another set of eyes on it, you'd have another electrician look at it. An inspector is just a tool to make sure the city gets a good insurance rating.


----------



## 99cents

CoolWill said:


> I agree with the sentiment. It doesn't always work out that way, but I get it. If you really wanted to have another set of eyes on it, you'd have another electrician look at it. An inspector is just a tool to make sure the city gets a good insurance rating.


And I agree with your sentiment.


----------



## Wiresmith

I would guess most electricians(non contractor, just worker) barely ever know of the jobs permitting or inspections. And many (again non contractor just workers, which is the case here) especially old timers don't even know there is a pool code section. I think many of you are making too quick of judgements on this, last time I looked this situation up I couldn't find enough details for myself to make an opinion on it. This pool and electrical was existing. What incentive does a normal worker have to omit permit and inspection? The contractor threw these workers under the bus to reduce his liability settlement.


----------



## John Valdes

CoolWill said:


> I agree with the sentiment. It doesn't always work out that way, but I get it. If you really wanted to have another set of eyes on it, you'd have another electrician look at it. An inspector is just a tool to make sure the city gets a good insurance rating.


A sign off by the AHJ in this case may have resulted in the inspector going to jail. Not the two stiffs who did the actual work.

I can tell you this. If I was the contractor, I would feel much better today knowing the inspector signed off on the work. 
Doesn't condone the action of the electricians or the contractor, but may help mitigate responsibility. Or possibly eliminate full responsibility.


----------



## 99cents

Wiresmith said:


> I would guess most electricians(non contractor, just worker) barely ever know of the jobs permitting or inspections. And many (again non contractor just workers, which is the case here) especially old timers don't even know there is a pool code section. I think many of you are making too quick of judgements on this, last time I looked this situation up I couldn't find enough details for myself to make an opinion on it. This pool and electrical was existing. What incentive does a normal worker have to omit permit and inspection? The contractor threw these workers under the bus to reduce his liability settlement.


Being old and not knowing the code book is no excuse. Besides that, they weren’t old.

In terms of the workers not knowing if it was permitted and inspected, they may be able to claim ignorance. That’s up to the contractor. There may be a level of responsibility with the hotel as well. They should know the rules regarding maintenance, repair and improvements.

In my opinion, the contractor is really the one who should have electrodes attached to his ballz.


----------



## HackWork

John Valdes said:


> A sign off by the AHJ in this case may have resulted in the inspector going to jail. Not the two stiffs who did the actual work.


 I don't know of any case law to show that this has ever happened. I have been told that they were completely free from any liability from negligence, as all government workers seem to be :crying:

From a realistic standpoint, inspectors aren't expected to inspect every little bit of every job, nor do they take on liability from a contractor not doing his job correctly.


----------



## Wiresmith

I was also thinking most of the responsibility would fall on the contractor, what motivation does a worker have to endanger people? They get paid by the hour. I'm not saying its okay for people to be clueless about what they do, but at the end of the day they are just workers called electricians, electrician doesn't mean you know or have to know everything about electrical work
These guys could have been refinery electricians and never worked on a pool there whole life, they take call out of hall and go pull the wire and terminate it the best they know how. They didn't take a contract to do pool electric, the contractor did and didn't supervise the work or qualify the workers/supervisors. The workers showed up as the labor. Misplacing blame here would be an even more dangerous mistake, sending signal to contractors they can operate recklessly with no recourse. I'm not saying the workers shouldn't get something, but that the contractor should likely get worse and I don't think enough details were released to decide anything.


----------



## HackWork

I for one am glad that the workers got all the blame and the business owner was not even mentioned. I think the workers should carry way more risk and liability than they do now. I don't think the business owner should be responsible for anything. Even the general liability and workers comp should be paid for by the workers.


----------



## Wiresmith

HackWork said:


> John Valdes said:
> 
> 
> 
> A sign off by the AHJ in this case may have resulted in the inspector going to jail. Not the two stiffs who did the actual work.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know of any case law to show that this has ever happened. I have been told that they were completely free from any liability from negligence, as all government workers seem to be
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From a realistic standpoint, inspectors aren't expected to inspect every little bit of every job, nor do they take on liability from a contractor not doing his job correctly.
Click to expand...

 I agree, inspector doesn't move responsibility, it might be a good piece to an arguement about standard of care but if I was on a jury I don't see how I could convict an inspector.


----------



## HackWork

Wiresmith said:


> I agree, inspector doesn't move responsibility, it might be a good piece to an arguement about standard of care but if I was on a jury I don't see how I could convict an inspector.


Yeah, if inspectors took liability, that would mean that they would have to check every single connection, every splice, and every screw. Remove every device, take it all apart, etc. It would make more sense for them to do the job themselves in the first place.


----------



## 99cents

HackWork said:


> I for one am glad that the workers got all the blame and the business owner was not even mentioned. I think the workers should carry way more risk and liability than they do now. I don't think the business owner should be responsible for anything. Even the general liability and workers comp should be paid for by the workers.


Disagree. You’re on the hook for employee negligence. I might not review a guy’s work if he’s changing light bulbs for grandma but, sure as hell, I’m going to check out pool wiring.

Actually, the contractor was mentioned by name.


----------



## 99cents

HackWork said:


> Yeah, if inspectors took liability, that would mean that they would have to check every single connection, every splice, and every screw. Remove every device, take it all apart, etc. It would make more sense for them to do the job themselves in the first place.


Here, it isn’t an inspection report, it’s called an observation. I assume that’s an attempt to limit liability. I do the same when I am asked for an inspection/observation/evaluation for the insurance company.


----------



## Wiresmith

HackWork said:


> I for one am glad that the workers got all the blame and the business owner was not even mentioned. I think the workers should carry way more risk and liability than they do now. I don't think the business owner should be responsible for anything. Even the general liability and workers comp should be paid for by the workers.


 then no one would work for anyone , you would be taking the risk and no profit, at that point the contractor is little more than the banker and advertiser but gets the profit of running the entire business with no responsibility for training/qualifying or supervising, two fundamental responsibilities for a business. 
Everybody has responsibility but different levels for different specific circumstances. Your model encourages carelessness on the contractors part and puts the responsibility on someone that just showed up to work FOR someone else by the hour and do things the way the contractor says to/does things.


----------



## HackWork

Wiresmith said:


> then no one would work for anyone , you would be taking the risk and no profit, at that point the contractor is little more than the banker and advertiser but gets the profit of running the entire business with no responsibility for training/qualifying or supervising, two fundamental responsibilities for a business.
> Everybody has responsibility but different levels for different specific circumstances. Your model encourages carelessness on the contractors part and puts the responsibility on someone that just showed up to work FOR someone else by the hour and do things the way the contractor says to/does things.


I just want what profits me the most. Passing the liability onto someone else is awesome.


----------



## 99cents

HackWork said:


> I just want what profits me the most. Passing the liability onto someone else is awesome.


Except the court decides negligence, not you, and your profit is zero if your sorry ass is in jail.


----------



## brian john

99cents said:


> Here, it isn’t an inspection report, it’s called an observation. I assume that’s an attempt to limit liability. I do the same when I am asked for an inspection/observation/evaluation for the insurance company.


When I had 6 men I did at 50 employees that is damn tough to pull off with all the other responsibilities of my job.


----------



## Wiresmith

99cents said:


> HackWork said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just want what profits me the most. Passing the liability onto someone else is awesome.
> 
> 
> 
> Except the court decides negligence, not you, and your profit is zero if your sorry ass is in jail.
Click to expand...

he's an entrepreneur I'm sure he'd make money in jail


----------



## Wiresmith

HackWork said:


> Wiresmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> then no one would work for anyone , you would be taking the risk and no profit, at that point the contractor is little more than the banker and advertiser but gets the profit of running the entire business with no responsibility for training/qualifying or supervising, two fundamental responsibilities for a business.
> Everybody has responsibility but different levels for different specific circumstances. Your model encourages carelessness on the contractors part and puts the responsibility on someone that just showed up to work FOR someone else by the hour and do things the way the contractor says to/does things.
> 
> 
> 
> I just want what profits me the most. Passing the liability onto someone else is awesome.
Click to expand...

 I think you are at least halfway joking, but if not, do you think anyone would work as employee for others in that system? 
Means and methods is business 's responsibility, they decide how things are done, means and methods. Otherwise you are hiring a contractor, who decides the means and methods and if they hire someone that refuses to follow those means and methods they get fired. The person in charge of the means and method should supervise and train/qualify the people they employ to follow those means and methods and therefore bare some responsibility when sh** hits the fan. At the end of the day there means and methods failed


----------



## HackWork

Wiresmith said:


> I think you are at least halfway joking, but if not, do you think anyone would work as employee for others in that system?
> Means and methods is business 's responsibility, they decide how things are done, means and methods. Otherwise you are hiring a contractor, who decides the means and methods and if they hire someone that refuses to follow those means and methods they get fired. The person in charge of the means and method should supervise and train/qualify the people they employ to follow those means and methods and therefore bare some responsibility when sh** hits the fan. At the end of the day there means and methods failed


You're making it too complicated.

I just want to make profit and limit my liability to zero.

Passing that liability onto the expendable employees sounds like an awesome idea.


----------



## 99cents

brian john said:


> When I had 6 men I did at 50 employees that is damn tough to pull off with all the other responsibilities of my job.


But you’re a diligent business owner, Brian, and it would be damn near impossible for this to happen under your watch even if it isn’t your eyes doing the actual watching.


----------



## Bird dog

99cents said:


> But you’re a diligent business owner, Brian, and it would be damn near impossible for this to happen under your watch even if it isn’t your eyes doing the actual watching.


The real question is what kind of EC is Brown Electric? Also, did this Hilton go bottom feeding for an EC?


----------



## Wiresmith

99cents said:


> brian john said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I had 6 men I did at 50 employees that is damn tough to pull off with all the other responsibilities of my job.
> 
> 
> 
> But you’re a diligent business owner, Brian, and it would be damn near impossible for this to happen under your watch even if it isn’t your eyes doing the actual watching.
Click to expand...

 50 guys, so you have other supervisors supervising, your supervising them which part of that is occasionally looking at the actual work being done, if you see problems you address them and audit more often.
Do you think the contractor in this instance did much of that? Or something like hire guys off the street looking for an hourly job, give them a half empty van and the address of the job. And said get these lights working.


----------



## gpop

Most of you guys have never dealt with a injury claim i see.

The lawyers will go after everyone and claim everything they can. Its like shaking a tree to see what falls out.

If you was a qualified electrician and you just happened to be in the same area as the person who installed something incorrectly you can be found to be at fault. It doesn't matter that it wasn't your job and you had nothing to do with it. 

Now if the company you work for has relatives that may have nothing to do with the company especially children the lawyer will harass them just to see if that motivates you to pay part of the settlement. (they will want proof that they have no interest in the company including a deposition).

The fact is they blame everyone then try to divide the blame later. As most people have insurance they go after the liability coverage first as that's easy money. (cheaper to settle then to fight). If you have umbrella insurance then they will chase after that as well. 

Right and wrong have very little to do with this. Most claims will be settled with no fault admitted which means the claim was payed because it was cheaper than defending against it. 

Here is a example.

Contractor hired to do a job, He brings in a specialist as his own sub contractor. 
They screw up. Specialist has no real money, Contractor only has minimum insurance so they sue the company that employed them as they have money. 
Lawyer goes after ever company electrical employees that were on site even though we were 1/4 mile away on a different job.


----------



## Wiresmith

Bird dog said:


> 99cents said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you’re a diligent business owner, Brian, and it would be damn near impossible for this to happen under your watch even if it isn’t your eyes doing the actual watching.
> 
> 
> 
> The real question is what kind of EC is Brown Electric? Also, did this Hilton go bottom feeding for an EC?
Click to expand...

 hilton, probably rightfully so, paid a settlement as well. But like your question, I don't think enough details were given to the public to make much of a decision in any direction


----------



## wildleg

I worked for a contractor that did new major chain hotels out of the ground after 2005 and the approved engineered drawings did not call for gfci on the niche lights.

just sayin . . .


----------



## CoolWill

wildleg said:


> I worked for a contractor that did new major chain hotels out of the ground after 2005 and the approved engineered drawings did not call for gfci on the niche lights.
> 
> just sayin . . .



But does installing to plan absolve you of any responsibility to abide by the code? I would say no.


----------



## HackWork

CoolWill said:


> But does installing to plan absolve you of any responsibility to abide by the code? I would say no.


Every plan/job spec I have ever seen states that the electrician has to install to code. We can't do something against code even if the plans or specs tell us to. If we could, then we could just draw up plans excluding AFCI's in every house :biggrin:


----------



## MTW

Most inspectors aren't qualified to inspect a single pole switch, let alone a pool lighting circuit. I don't put any weight in their words or inspections.


----------



## Mulder

flyboy said:


> A woman wouldn't be that stupid to put 120V within 10 ft of a swimming pool.


A receptacle is required between 6 ft and 20 ft from the pool. 680.22(A)(1)


----------



## Switched

HackWork said:


> Every plan/job spec I have ever seen states that the electrician has to install to code. We can't do something against code even if the plans or specs tell us to. If we could, then we could just draw up plans excluding AFCI's in every house :biggrin:


I've worked on a few power plant projects were we had to install per specs. even if they were in contrast to the NEC. I am sure there are other government type projects where they can essentially write their own standards too?


----------



## HackWork

Switched said:


> I've worked on a few power plant projects were we had to install per specs. even if they were in contrast to the NEC. I am sure there are other government type projects where they can essentially write their own standards too?


 They have to go by whatever code/requirements their jurisdiction adopts. In the case of a powerplant or government project, they are often inside of their own jurisdiction.


----------



## jelhill

t


flyboy said:


> Line voltage fed wet-niche lights should be illegal. And any electrican installing one should have electrodes hooked up to his penis and be electrocuted.


Ouch... makes me hurt just to think about it! :biggrin:


----------



## Wiresmith

MTW said:


> Most inspectors aren't qualified to inspect a single pole switch, let alone a pool lighting circuit. I don't put any weight in their words or inspections.


 I agree, and this can actually make things worse than not having an inspector, now the customer and General public (and often many electricians)often have a false sense of having acceptable electrical installations


----------



## Wiresmith

Switched said:


> HackWork said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every plan/job spec I have ever seen states that the electrician has to install to code. We can't do something against code even if the plans or specs tell us to. If we could, then we could just draw up plans excluding AFCI's in every house
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've worked on a few power plant projects were we had to install per specs. even if they were in contrast to the NEC. I am sure there are other government type projects where they can essentially write their own standards too?
Click to expand...

 refineries I've been in are like that to, codes are knowingly overlooked and although the state doesn't inspect anything, NEC is adopted as state administrative law, everyone is supposed to follow it although not everyone has a government ahj


----------



## HackWork

Wiresmith said:


> refineries I've been in are like that to, codes are knowingly overlooked and although the state doesn't inspect anything, NEC is adopted as state administrative law, everyone is supposed to follow it although not everyone has a government ahj


That is kinda like the way that I am supposed to follow code, but often don't :biggrin:


----------



## MechanicalDVR

Wiresmith said:


> he's an entrepreneur I'm sure he'd make money in jail


Running a 'service' business?


----------



## MTW

Wiresmith said:


> refineries I've been in are like that to, codes are knowingly overlooked and although the state doesn't inspect anything, NEC is adopted as state administrative law, everyone is supposed to follow it although not everyone has a government ahj


Large projects like refineries and power plants often have their own inspections and QC done by the engineering firm hired to do the job. They are the ones who make sure the job gets done correctly, not some retired failed electrician aka government hack inspector who has no clue what he's even looking at.


----------



## MechanicalDVR

Switched said:


> I've worked on a few power plant projects were we had to install per specs. even if they were in contrast to the NEC. *I am sure there are other government type projects where they can essentially write their own standards too?*


Almost everyone of them on a military reservation.


----------



## Wiresmith

MechanicalDVR said:


> Wiresmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> he's an entrepreneur I'm sure he'd make money in jail
> 
> 
> 
> Running a 'service' business?
Click to expand...

like they say, you learn a skill like electrical work you will always have something to fall back on. Tuggin, strippin, bendin, soap'n. The world's your oyster


----------



## Wiresmith

MTW said:


> Wiresmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> refineries I've been in are like that to, codes are knowingly overlooked and although the state doesn't inspect anything, NEC is adopted as state administrative law, everyone is supposed to follow it although not everyone has a government ahj
> 
> 
> 
> Large projects like refineries and power plants often have their own inspections and QC done by the engineering firm hired to do the job. They are the ones who make sure the job gets done correctly, not some retired failed electrician aka government hack inspector who has no clue what he's even looking at.
Click to expand...

they are about as big of a joke in my experience and don't look well at all, just walk through.


----------



## MechanicalDVR

Wiresmith said:


> like they say, you learn a skill like electrical work you will always have something to fall back on. Tuggin, strippin, bendin, soap'n. The world's your oyster


:vs_laugh::vs_laugh:

Yup, always have a salable skillset!


----------



## Wirenuting

MechanicalDVR said:


> Almost everyone of them on a military reservation.


Federal property is covered under federal regulations. 
One agency can not trump over another unless it's due to a federal law. 
Until then a contractor is held to the specs of a job. 

Federal workers are a different breed and are covered under different federal codes of regulations based on the department they work for. 


I have yet to see a Federal Electrical Code..


----------



## CoolWill

Every military project I have worked on says "To NEC Code", but then tells you to do stuff that isn't to code. For example, I do a few warehouse lighting upgrades a year. All of them spec #10 for long pulls for voltage drop but a #12 ground. When pointed out, they told me they don't have to abide by the NEC.


Yet, you know that if for whatever reason something went wrong and things went sideways, the first thing they'd point out is that you didn't install it to code.


----------



## splatz

I am pretty sure a couple of the really large industrial facilities (non-government) around here have waivers or exemptions granted by the AHJ so they are not bound by the NEC. I mean I am sure the power plant isn't inspected by the local Homer Magoo inspectors, I'd think the same goes for refineries etc. 

I know at federal facilities I have worked on the engineers were pretty quick (some maybe too quick) to wave off the NEC with a "Don't worry about it, that doesn't apply here." 

I was told or maybe assumed the waivers stipulate engineering oversight (everything stamped by EE). I am sure their insurance companies have requirements too. 

Over the years there have been lots of times where someone's told me *verbally* they're letting me off the hook for some code or standard that's *in writing* on our specs. Fortunately not born yesterday, I have always told them to authorize the release in writing, or we're going by the spec. If it was important enough to write in there, its important enough to write out of there.


----------



## MechanicalDVR

Wirenuting said:


> Federal property is covered under federal regulations.
> One agency can not trump over another unless it's due to a federal law.
> Until then a contractor is held to the specs of a job.
> 
> Federal workers are a different breed and are covered under different federal codes of regulations based on the department they work for.
> 
> 
> I have yet to see a Federal Electrical Code..


Amen to that!

But at the same time I have worked on a few buildings (banks, gas stations, etc) on military installations where it seems they used private inspectors rather than the facilities engineers on site. Not sure how that all transpires but it was a thing.


----------



## Wirenuting

MechanicalDVR said:


> Amen to that!
> 
> But at the same time I have worked on a few buildings (banks, gas stations, etc) on military installations where it seems they used private inspectors rather than the facilities engineers on site. Not sure how that all transpires but it was a thing.


I would bet that those buildings are under a non-appropriated fund source. They are kind of tenant owned and operated or the local command doesnt have the resources to watch over that small a contract. 
Or
Those buildings are under the government/private sector partnership were as the property was leased to them on a 50 year program. 
They did that locally here about 15 years ago. Leased the housing out to a company and that included all repairs. Two years later the company went belly up and its been a PITA ever since. They have to have their own maintance crews and they contract out 90% of the work. Won’t be our problem again until I’m long retired. I hated working the residential side of it years ago here. Them wife’s were bat $h/t crazy.


----------



## MechanicalDVR

Wirenuting said:


> I would bet that those buildings are under a non-appropriated fund source. They are kind of tenant owned and operated or the local command doesnt have the resources to watch over that small a contract.
> Or
> Those buildings are under the government/private sector partnership were as the property was leased to them on a 50 year program.
> They did that locally here about 15 years ago. Leased the housing out to a company and that included all repairs. Two years later the company went belly up and its been a PITA ever since. They have to have their own maintance crews and they contract out 90% of the work. Won’t be our problem again until I’m long retired. I hated working the residential side of it years ago here. *Them wife’s were bat $h/t crazy.*


Oh I have plenty of stories about Navy wives, some of them down right scary!.


----------



## Wirenuting

MechanicalDVR said:


> Oh I have plenty of stories about Navy wives, some of them down right scary!.


Scary is when they corner you in the bedroom and you have a coworker standing the the doorway watching. (He was my requested chaperone) She still pinned me to the wall and tried to go to town. 
I politely pushed her back, said I gotta grab something from the truck and ran across her bed and past my coworker who’s mouth was hanging open. 
Never did finish that job. LoL

Oh ya, she was a Marine.. She was pretty good looking but the 1/2 eaten crayons laying about scared me. :vs_laugh:


----------



## MechanicalDVR

Wirenuting said:


> Scary is when they corner you in the bedroom and you have a coworker standing the the doorway watching. (He was my requested chaperone) She still pinned me to the wall and tried to go to town.
> I politely pushed her back, said I gotta grab something from the truck and ran across her bed and past my coworker who’s mouth was hanging open.
> Never did finish that job. LoL
> 
> Oh ya, she was a Marine.. She was pretty good looking but the 1/2 eaten crayons laying about scared me. :vs_laugh:


OMG bro, I have almost the exact story with a 400# Navy wife trying to latch onto my 19 year old apprentice that sounded like a little girl when I called to him from downstairs. When I went upstairs she had a "machine" in her hand that was like a blow dryer with a very 'odd' looking attachment on the end!

My apprentice ran by me like his ass was on fire!

She had no crayons I saw but the piles of p o r n o mags and VHS tapes were staggering!


----------



## Wardenclyffe

joebanana said:


> So, this county doesn't have building inspectors? Any decent inspector would have caught that little omission right off. What I want to know is why two electricians were charged? It only takes one to not install a GFI.


 Pyle, the supervisor for the job, did not get a permit for the work with the city of Houston so it was never inspected, according to the criminal complaint.


----------



## micromind

Wardenclyffe said:


> Pyle, the supervisor for the job, did not get a permit for the work with the city of Houston so it was never inspected, according to the criminal complaint.


Pyle......was it Gomer or Goober?


----------



## Wiresmith

micromind said:


> Pyle......was it Gomer or Goober?


I think they said two. Andy locked both of them up. Wally's Electric Service, Mayberry


----------



## joebanana

Wardenclyffe said:


> Pyle, the supervisor for the job, did not get a permit for the work with the city of Houston so it was never inspected, according to the criminal complaint.


Was he one of the ones charged? Should have been the only one charged.


----------



## Wiresmith

joebanana said:


> Was he one of the ones charged? Should have been the only one charged.


yes, him and the electrician. Remember it just says charged which doesn't mean much. They wound up taking plea deals where they aren't allowed to do electrical work anymore and something like a few years of something like probation. They get it taken off their record after so long. I'm sure no amount of jail would be as bad as knowing you were apart of that. I never heard of the contractor getting anything from the state. They got what you might think are decent plea deals because any decent defense lawyer would have got them off. They completely admitted every part in it they had, their testimony was the only half decent evidence against themselves, they had state jman licenses and been in trade for a good while


----------



## Djea3

*Jail time for inspectors?*



John Valdes said:


> A sign off by the AHJ in this case may have resulted in the inspector going to jail. Not the two stiffs who did the actual work.


Most municipalities exempt themselves from ALL liability and culpability in every inspection. They also exempt themselves from suits by the client and or contractors. The only time I have heard of an inspector going to jail was for receiving bribes to pass illegal work.

There is a trend currently for municipalities to move to professional inspection companies instead of using direct employees. I kind of like that idea because those companies can NOT exempt themselves from liability.

I just finished a standing seam metal roof on my house. The inspectors only glanced at the roof. They are not allowed to walk the roof at any point in the inspection. This meant that there WAS NO INSPECTION technically. Yet my work was signed off.


----------



## Djea3

*Would GFCI have saved the victim?*

I did some research on GFCIs in Florida. It seems that up to 80% of them are failed units, meaning they are not protecting anything. I believe that this has to do with the humidity here. Sorry I do not have the reference site bookmarked. This information was based upon random samples across the state.

I know that I replaced a GFCI on a bollard in my yard last year (including new bell box and in use water tight cover). It has already failed in less than 9 months.

Was there a GFCI in the circuit that was not replaced? If not, why was there no GFCI to begin with? This was an existing circuit being repaired according to the story. Did they run new circuit or do repairs only? Lots of questions here.

I am unsure that the employees should have been charged, instead the EC should have been charged. Otherwise journeymen should just be considered contractors and get to make the big bucks and take the risks legally. That is the difference between a Master and a Jm.


----------



## wildleg

I disagree with the previous post. 

Many cases of negligence, personal injury, etc in the US revolve around key issues such as whether the individuals performing the work knew or should have known the dangers, the proper procedures, and/or the law regarding the work, and whether or not they took the proper precautions, or knowingly did not.

Anyone with any qualification above apprentice working as an electrician has presumably studied the code, starting with article 100, and knows, or should know that a part and parcel to their job is protecting people from the dangers of electricity. 

So, no, journeymen should not be let off the hook for being a cog in this deadly chain.

You surely can argue as to what the extent of their liability, and punishment, should be (who am I to say), but in no case should the attitude be that they are simply not liable.

just my .02


----------

