Subject: Re: Seismic Upgrade ..... Appeal to those who created the code
Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 19:55:22 EDT
Thanks so much for the response - it does a great deal to put this into
proper perspective. The only thing that I take issue with is the statement of
intent to be issue. As you indicated, these issues have already been brought
up in litigation at the possible expense of the engineer being sued or the
insurance company. Your comments are very clear and if the statement were
worded simply as you indicated in your post, there would be no argument. I am
not sure this can be properly handled in one or two sentences and should
certainly cover the misconception that originated in the 1994 code (which
engineers remain liable for after adoption of a new code) and possibly the 88
code that you and others refered to.
If I might suggest, we have cut this issue apart in such great detail with so
many good minds with specialties in expert witness work as well as practical
engineering that it might be usefull to present a draft of the statement to
this list for review and comment. I think that the professional community can
adequatly help eleviate the long term liablity without altering the original
intent of the Seismology committee.
Granted, if I were to be involved you would need to add another chapter just
to cover my wording, but I am confident that others on this list can help and
do so expediently.
Thank you so much for the information and your compliments. Although I love
to be complimented, the truth is that none of the efforts that Shafat or I
have done would be possible without the engineers who use the service daily.
These are the truely gifted people. In a conversation I had the other day
with my wife I realized that one persons opinions are not nearly so powerful
as a group of opinions. Change is rarely the result of one persons efforts,
but of all the others who become involved.
Dennis S. Wish PE