Essentially, you are correct. The case was fought in California (Southern).
It is a perfect example of a conflict between two laws. I don't suppose that
this is unique as interpretations based on case law is fairly common and
changes the position on issues often.
In my opinion, the court's position was in direct opposition to the intent
of the building laws to protect against potential injury.
Since I am so much against the decision, I can understand how it was
justified in the courts, but I can lead you to the Structuralist.Net Public
forum where I and others present the full Supreme Court ruling. Seek out the
topic - HomeSafe Campaign - Aas vs. Williams Lyon Company.
I'd be interested in your opinions.
One problem is that if the California Supreme Court decision is appealed to
the Federal Supreme Court and upheld, it can have a tremendous impact on
construction quality all over the country as it establishes a precedence.
Let us know what you think.
Dennis S. Wish, PE
The Structuralist Administrator for:
(208) 361-5447 E-Fax
The Structuralist is a Public, Professional and Educational website devoted
to issues on Housing. You are invited to participate or simply visit our
discussion forums at"
NOTE: YOU MUST REGISTER (FREE) WITH THE SITE TO POST REPLIES OR MESSAGES.
You may register on the Structuralist.Net at:
Please make sure that when you copy this link that you copy the entire link
begining at http: and ending with Register. There should be no spaces
between any of the letters or characters.
Our Residential Listservice is open to all professionals in the building
industry and the discussions include code compliance issues as well as
quality of construction, prescriptive vs. full compliance, present and
future code development and more. The AEC-Residential List is by
subscription (always free). To subscribe please use the AutoList
subscription feature for the Polhemus.cc Listservices located at:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fountain Conner [mailto:fconner(--nospam--at)pcola.gulf.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 6:00 AM
> To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> Subject: Re: Engineering from Home - Protecting Perso
> Let me get this straight?
> The code is the law, is it not?
> And it was agreed that violations of the "law" were not applicable in this
> case? In a "court of law", violations of the law provide an unfair
> advantage to the plaintiff? I tho't that violation of law was the main
> reason for initiating a court case.
> If I understand this correctly, it simply reconfirms the "golden rule" (He
> who has the gold makes the rules).
> Where was this case tried? New York City? Chicago? Washington, D.C.?
> Boston? Any state capitol, or large city where judges are simply a
> I don't know whether to laugh or weep.
> Fountain E. Conner, P.E.
> Gulf Breeze, Fl. 32561
> > From: Structuralist <dennis.wish(--nospam--at)gte.net>
> > To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> > Subject: RE: Engineering from Home - Protecting Perso
> > Date: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 12:33 AM
> > Aas was an unusual case as before the case was tried in the Superior
> > it was agreed that the list of all structural and code defects would be
> > excluded from admission. It was reasoned that the list of defects
> > an unfair advantage for the Plaintiff.