• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Purely Decorative Residential Railing

Kendra

Registered User
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
66
Location
Philadelphia
is there a mimimum height for a residential railing that is purely decorative? It is on a sunroom roof. There are windows that one could go through to get out onto the porch, but that is not intended. The slope is 1/4" per 1'-0" on this roof, so it is flat. There is not equipment to be accessed on the roof.
 
I hate to say it, but in our present litigious society if there is a railing it should be at the 36" required for a walking surface.

When I was in college we used to drag our mattresses through a window to catch some rays on a flat roof, and I'm sure our landlady didn't intend for that. Nobody cared back in the 60s, but if somebody tried that today and fell off their attorney would say that the railing didn't provide the protection his or her client thought it would.
 
The 2015 IRC states that guards shall be located along open-sided walking surfaces, including stairs, ramps and landings that are 30 inches above grade. If this is a sunroom with a roof comprised of glass panels (no walking surfaces), I would not apply the guard height requirements.
 
Like Paul said, is you are providing some form of guard, you are acknowledging a hazard. If you provide nothing, you can at least argue that it is not a walking surface and the occupant injuries stem from miss-use. Hard to argue this point if you have tried to mitigate the hazard.
 
Not a walking surface, no guard required. If it is reasonable to determine it is a walking surface then you could be at risk but without a door, with roof coverings as opposed to decking material, no equipment or other reason to be up there, IMHO I think it is reasonable to call it a roof.
 
Reasonable is only in the defendants mind. If used as a B n B and a child crawls out it may be seen as an attractive nuisence.
 
I understand the thought process but we already have safety codes for those situations (window fall protection). I think a guard on an unoccupied roof with no access other than a window may be an over-reach. I wouldn't require it based on the information provided. If the OP or an inspector has the "crawling out the window concern" then they should make sure the window fall protection requirements are met. The guard isn't a bad idea if someone is concerned, I just don't think it is supported by our minimum code.
 
I can probably show you at least 50 homes in my city with decorative railings around a flat roof that can be accessed through a window. Pretty common architectural feature for house constructed in the first half of the 20th century
iu

iu
 
I hate to say it, but in our present litigious society if there is a railing it should be at the 36" required for a walking surface.

When I was in college we used to drag our mattresses through a window to catch some rays on a flat roof, and I'm sure our landlady didn't intend for that. Nobody cared back in the 60s, but if somebody tried that today and fell off their attorney would say that the railing didn't provide the protection his or her client thought it would.


R312.1.2 Height. Required guards at open-sided walking surfaces, including stairs, porches, balconies or landings, shall be not less than 42 inches (1067 mm) in height as measured vertically above the adjacent walking surface or the line connecting the nosings.

No matter what the surface is, it is just a roof. Without stairs or a door leading to it there is no requirement for a guard. The decorative features that mtlogcabin posted would look odd at 1067 mm

Here is an example of why we are not metric. 42 inches versus 1067 mm. I pull out my tape and walla 42" or I pull out my tape and a conversion app on my phone.
 
Last edited:
Ice, I think that 42" is a California amendment. The unamended IRC is 36".

I'm wondering whether a 16" or so high decorative railing that is obviously way too low to be for protection might be a defense from a lawsuit. The problem is it might look silly.
 
As usual, "it depends" on how much insurance you carry and the willingness of the carrier to defend you.
it may come down to the physical and emotional damages claimed and the property owners history with the property.
 
Top