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

Re: Aase ruling

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Mr. Wish:
     It is indeed, potentially damaging to homeowners. However, when the high
court rules one must be respectful of its decision. Public outreach is not my
area, but it would be beneficial to have a seminar put on by an engineering
association
having speakers drawn from the legal firms involved with this case.

     This would be a good method to clear up misunderstandings; assuming, of
course, that it is not overly interpretive case law to begin with.

Regards,
Steven A.





Structuralist wrote:

> I believe you are correct. There is an indirect benefit to engineers, but
> most whom I have talked to agree that the decision is damaging to the
> homeowner.
> On clarification. I believe that the court was saying that as a "Product"
> the defects were to be treated under Contract law based on the terms and
> compliance of the builders warranty. This is what I interpreted from reading
> the court decision.
>
> Dennis
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Steven A. [mailto:cratylus(--nospam--at)earthlink.net]
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 2:25 PM
> > To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> > Subject: Re: Aase ruling
> >
> >
> > Dear Sharon:
> >
> >      Those concerned about the ramifications of this case should
> > keep in mind
> > that the court limited its ruling to negligence claims and I
> > believe said it
> > does not apply to a claim based on contract or warranty.
> >
> >      This may mean that those responsible for design defects
> > (negligence) fare
> > better than those promising good construction. I believe that a
> > full study of
> > this case, in the context of professional liability and
> > construction warranty
> > (what typical contractors are held to) will impact builders more
> > than designers.
> >
> >
> > Steven A.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > sharonb(--nospam--at)slarchitects.com wrote:
> >
> > > Have you received any response from any of the members of the California
> > > legislature?
> > >
> > > Sharon Robertson Bonds, PE
> > > Salerno/Livingston Architects
> > > 363 Fifth Avenue, Third Floor
> > > San Diego, California  92101
> > > (619) 234-7471
> > >
> > >         -----Original Message-----
> > >         From:   chuckuc [SMTP:chuckuc(--nospam--at)pacbell.net]
> > >         Sent:   Tuesday, April 03, 2001 10:46 AM
> > >         To:     seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> > >         Subject:        Aase ruling
> > >
> > >         Dennis-
> > >         I did the only thing I could think of.
> > >         1. A letter of concern to various members of the California
> > > legislature.
> > >
> > >         "I am writing to express my concern about the recent
> > Cal. Supreme
> > > Court
> > >         decision in the Aase case regarding construction
> > defects.  The court
> > >         ruled that builders could ignore every provision of the building
> > > code
> > >         and suffer no repair cost until there is an actual
> > injury.  This is
> > > the
> > >         worst possible public policy.  California's structural engineers
> > > have
> > >         been at the forefront of efforts to make our construction more
> > >         earthquake resistant.  This ruling is a major setback for safe
> > >         construction.
> > >         The court's decision is one of the stupidest pieces of
> > reasoning I
> > > have
> > >         ever seen.  It incents developers to hire the cheapest, most
> > >         unprincipled builders who simply gamble on not getting
> > caught by the
> > >         building inspector.  For the subsequent homeowner there is no
> > > recourse
> > >         except to wait for an earthquake to wreck the home and/or kill
> > > someone.
> > >         Construction quality is poor already and this will make
> > it worse.
> > >         The Chief Justice's dissent calls on the legislature to
> > take action
> > > to
> > >         protect California's residents.  Please do so ASAP."
> > >         Chuck Utzman, P.E.
> > >
> > >         2. A letter to the editor of the Journal of Light
> > Construction (they
> > >         carried a recent summary piece on Aase.)
> > >
> > >         "The example you cited in your piece is a perfect
> > example of why the
> > >         Aase decision is aasinine. An electrical subcontractor is now
> > > invited to
> > >         build an electrical death-trap and the homeowner or General
> > > Contractor
> > >         must wait until someone is electrocuted to get money to
> > fix it. The
> > > same
> > >         logic is applied to seismic safety problems, the court sees no
> > > problem
> > >         until an earthquake wrecks your house.  This ruling is
> > the work of
> > >         jurists with too many books and no common sense.  It is doubtful
> > > that
> > >         the problem will be rectified by the California
> > legislature until a
> > >         sufficient number of people are killed to get their attention."
> > >         Chuck Utzman, P.E., G.C.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>