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

Re: UBC/LA City Code and Lateral Design Forces

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
To:  Mr Dennis Wish and all others interested:

I have been following your exhaustive efforts on this subject and have 
noticed your apparent frustration.  I would like to make some comments to  
your recent posting.
First,  as to the issue of Standard of Care  regarding an engineer's design, 
the standard of care which a design professional must adhere to is a factual 
issue in a jury trial, decided by a panel of jurors;  a judge sitting in such 
trial cannot decide this issue. Such standard of care is defined in BAJI ( 
Jury Instruction). In general terms, it is the applicable and acceptable 
standard of care which is prevailing in the engineering community.  Hence the 
role of "experts" to define such  "Acceptable and Applicable" standard to a 
jury.
Second, as to your suggestion of possible litigation to declare a certain 
applicable and enforceable standard of care, and in line of the 
aforementioned comments, it may not be a possible option.  Further,  
litigation must invove a controversy or dispute between two or more parties; 
in this scenario, and unless you name and serve a "defendant" a case cannot 
be litigated in a court.  You may however name the entity responsible for 
issuing the UBC(?) as a defendant and litigate the validity and /or ambiguity 
of the specfic code requirements in a declaratory relief action; it's a long 
shot by all means!!
Third,  the UBC is the applicable code in determining a standard of care for 
engineers.  Having said that, I must add that it is my understanding that the 
 L.A. City code is at an equal level to the UBC, at least within the city of 
L.A., as it is considered a more stringent building code.   Therefore, 
applying the L.A. city requirements, in regards to lateral force 
distribution, apparently may shield an engineer from potential liability in 
this particular case.

I hope this was a meaningfull addition to this discussion.

Regards,

George Hakim