Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Re: Liability and the '97 UBC

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Dennis:

Write the UBC, say there is an _ambiguity_ in their code, explain why each
intrepretation of the ambiguity is reasonable, ask UBC which intrepretation
is correct, and invite them to post their response to the question in this
forum.

-----Original Message-----
From: Seaintonln(--nospam--at)aol.com <Seaintonln(--nospam--at)aol.com>
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
Cc: SEAOSC(--nospam--at)aol.com <SEAOSC(--nospam--at)aol.com>; Seaoc(--nospam--at)aol.com <Seaoc(--nospam--at)aol.com>
Date: Thursday, May 06, 1999 2:01 PM
Subject: Liability and the '97 UBC


[snip a lot]

I became concerned by the nature of the thread on Rigid Diaphragm Analysis
that we have created an issue of liability that could be used by any lawyer
to institute a suit, which may be friviolous, but can be justified by an
expert witness because of the lack of compliance to rigid diaphragm analysis
as noted in the 1994 UBC. It does not matter what the target of the suit is,
as long as the attorney include the lack of compliance to this methodology.