Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
Re: Special Inspection[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
- Subject: Re: Special Inspection
- From: GSKWY(--nospam--at)aol.com
- Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 12:58:28 EST
My questions on special inspection actually stem from a litigation where the testing company is saying that they did not do special inspection.
They were hired by the design engineer (who was also doing construction administration) to perform certain functions, i.e. test the concrete, check the rebar placement, record the post-tensioning elongations.
But the project specifications say "The owner will hire as a special inspector as required by the Code". Since this was a Seimic Performance Category "B" building, special inspection was not required; thus the testing company is saying they did not do special inspection. (Their contract just lists the things they will do, it doesn't call the work special inspection.)
To the lawyers involved (of which there are many), this seems to a very key point. Personally, I do not see that having the inspection agency agree that they did special inspection makes them liable for the work that has now (post-construction) been found faulty; they filed reports all the way along recording the problems they observed.
And although this appears to be quibbling, I think a great many law suits have hinged on who quibbled better.
- Prev by Subject: RE: Special Inspection
- Next by Subject: RE: Special Inspection
- Previous by thread: RE: Special Inspection
- Next by thread: RE: Special Inspection