I appreciate your input to this, and other threads, on this list server.
Most of us are engineers and do not have a good grasp of legal ramifications
of code issues. Your insight is very helpful and refreshing.
Now in regard to the suits filed when there is no apparent damage due to a
seismic event. We see the results of these suits in building departments in
California all the time. Applicants come to us after the settlement of these
suits with all types of proposals (some Mickey Mouse) to try to repair the
deficiencies to the lateral force resisting system of the building.
(Actually I believe this whole issue of diaphragm rigidity originated from
these types of suits. I recall one firm, heavily involved in litigation,
that insisted on using the rigid diaphragm approach since they did not want
to place any shear walls at the exterior of the building. Hence by using the
rigid diaphragm concept, they were able to only upgrade the interior
corridor walls only.)
What is not clear to me is: if according to what you say, until there is no
damage, there is no liability to the EOR, why do the engineers get sued for
these things? Or do they happen to get caught in a web because the builder
is getting sued?
Ben Yousefi, SE
San Jose, CA
From: GEOHAK(--nospam--at)aol.com [SMTP:GEOHAK(--nospam--at)aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2000 9:46 AM
To: MarkD(--nospam--at)danddeng.com; seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: Re: Negligence per se ( another misconception)
Reply to mark Deardorff's comments:
We are talking about two different things. It may be legitimate for
plaintiff to sue for cracks, etc... But who is liable? My prior
concerning the EOR's liability, which is totally separate from the
liability. In your scenario, the builder should be asked to repair
damages. The EOR's liability must be based on his negligence, ie his
(or lack of it) actually caused those damages. If the EOR's design
cause those damages, he should be dismissed; as to the builder,