It's Not an Egress Window

[wwhitney]

Wayne, the NEC Style Guide isn’t law or code, it’s just a guideline for committees drafting future editions, so it has no impact on what’s enforceable.

True, but the style guide does show that even the writers of the NEC concede that sufficiently vague requirements are unenforceable.

NEC 110.12 has been in place for decades and is routinely enforced because “neat and workmanlike” has an industry-accepted meaning backed by NFPA guidance and best practices.

No. The phrase "neat and workmanlike" is too vague to be enforceable on its own. That sentence is a basically a content-free preamble to the specific requirements in 110.12(A), (B), (C). If the only code citation an inspector can give to fail something is the first sentence of 110.12, they have not done their job properly.

Plenty of NEC sections require AHJ interpretation, like 300.4 (“subject to physical damage”) and the rules for service disconnect location, which don’t specify exact distances but leave it to the AHJ to determine what’s acceptable.

Sure, but those have a purpose in accordance with the "practical safeguarding" goal of the NEC as stated in 90.1(A). And those sections would be improved if they were more specific.

Courts have upheld this authority. Hagans v. Wal-Mart confirmed that just because a code requires judgment doesn’t mean it’s unenforceable.

Certainly judgement is sometimes required. But when the wording is too vague and there's basically zero rational basis for that judgement, that becomes unenforceable. "Neat and workmanlike" is an example of that.

[The only reference a quick search for "Hagans v Wal-Mart" comes up with is an EEOC case, where it seems pretty obvious that Wal-Mart was in the wrong without much judgement required, but I have not read the legal briefs.]

And that is precisely what you don't seem to understand about this industry. Not everything is specific, but those in the industry understand why not everything can be or should be specific.

OK, so not everything is 100% objective. But there needs to be some objective basis. "Neat and workmanlike" is close to 100% subjective.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[Yikes]

Wayne, the NEC Style Guide isn’t law or code, it’s just a guideline for committees drafting future editions, so it has no impact on what’s enforceable. NEC 110.12 has been in place for decades and is routinely enforced because “neat and workmanlike” has an industry-accepted meaning backed by NFPA guidance and best practices. Plenty of NEC sections require AHJ interpretation, like 300.4 (“subject to physical damage”) and the rules for service disconnect location, which don’t specify exact distances but leave it to the AHJ to determine what’s acceptable. Courts have upheld this authority. Hagans v. Wal-Mart confirmed that just because a code requires judgment doesn’t mean it’s unenforceable. The NEC is full of provisions that require AHJ discretion, and that discretion carries legal weight. If your argument were valid, half the NEC wouldn’t be enforceable, which obviously isn’t the case. Ok, so I embellished. not half, but a lot.

I tried to look up the Hagens v. Walmart decision, but without subscriptions, I can’t find the relevant statements about judgement and enforceability. This is a big deal especially here in California, where cities are being told by the state that their zoning codes must incorporate objective design standards in lieu of a discretionary design review processes.

Please provide more info on this particular issue.

Thanks

 

[Joe.B]

Unenforceable?



Hold my beer...