• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Malibu Balcony Collapse

The owner seems to have tried to prevent the problem by limiting the house to “no parties” and not more than 6 on the balcony. Which raises the question ... did she do that because she knew the structure was weak?
 
I saw a video on line that suggests that code loading was not exceeded. This suggests that the problem was related to either decay on improper construction.
 
steveray said:
The owner tried to prevent PROBLEMS by not allowing parties...like the place getting trashed....Can't say that had anything to do with the deck....
Click to expand...
Agree. If the owner limited the number of residents because a defect was known that would prohibit more than 6 people I think they are in big trouble. Seems like a shaky defense to admit you knew there was a problem and tried to mitigate it with an unenforceable occupant control. I'll be interested to see what the cause was, I question an acute overload. Decks and the safety factors used in the design account for the probability of a lot of people, even if they are bouncing and jiggling.
 

The maximum occupancy of a short-term rental property (including the guests, owner, and any other natural persons) shall be limited to two (2) people more than twice the number of bedrooms listed on City or County record sup to a maximum of fourteen (14) people ,unless a special event permit is obtained pursuant to Chapter 5.34 of this code. This occupancy, as listed on the short-term rental permit, shall not be exceeded at any time the property is rented
 
Last edited:
Interesting. At first glance it appeared to have been limited by the owner but I made a faulty assumption. The speed and angle of the video make it difficult to tell, but this doesn't look like it failed at the ledger, at least not from gravity load. Looks more like it failed at the outer support. From the over-head wide angle it looks like all of the decks are cantilevered or supported back to the structure with angled "columns" to avoid supporting it by the retaining wall fill below. This would add lateral load to the ledger I think.
 
Looks like two issues to me.

One is civil and the other may be a building department issue if they for whatever reason inspected the deck.
 
From the limited information and finger pointing, the renter violated the visibly posted 6 Guest/persons maximum.

And from the pictures unless no one reads English that was clearly visible to everyone.

If the deck was revised and or built in 2018 and inspected then also, then the owner should have reasonable expectations that there should have been no problems, not every owner has any understanding or need to crawl under the deck and look for problems, remember most everyone here, their day job is looking for issues, not the norm.

IF the news media story is true and the owner and the renter were talking before it happened and the renter new and violated the maximum number allowed in the structure, that is the person that should be hung out to dry in the first place. New that the party was a no go and still went through with it and everyone there who read the sign and still proceeded to stay, IMO they have no claims.

YEs I believe there is more than meets the eye for this to have happened, but inspected by a Cali Inspector in a high priced town. Not sure who or what happened, but someone will figure it out and only the lawyers will make any money on it probably in the end.
 
Exposure to wet and dry periods leads to expansion and contraction over time. Base wood may not have been treated to resist rot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top