California Locations: I have a client that has a few 60's vintage buildings that were not code required to have an elevator when constructed, but were constructed with an elevator that at the time of construction was code compliant. These are all two story buildings that have never been and will not be leased to a health care provider. Also not a shopping center and or a transportation terminal. The building owner's attorney's are concerned about the possibility of any tenant being able to be successful with any type of ADA lawsuit that would compel them to have to increase the size of the shaft in order to create a current code complying cab size.
The current elevators have all been upgraded with as much of the current technology that these cabs will accept. They all provide a 36" min. clear opening that would allow wheelchair access. The cab size does not allow a 60" turn around. Current cab size is 49.5" wide x 47" deep to control panel. Wheelchair users currently navigate them. The control panels have all been upgraded per current CA code. door operation, floor leveling, hall lanterns, hands free emergency communication, emergency lighting, all the bells and whistles. These buildings have undergone or are currently in the process of substantial remodels. In each case the jurisdictions required accessibility upgrades based upon this new construction. We have been granted "technical in-feasibility" for cab size as major structural work would need to be undertaken in order to increase the shaft size's.
I typically have no answer for what if's on lawsuits, because you can virtually file anything you want. I am just trying to see if any of you fine folks have any experience in this matter. Could someone (successfully) argue that this should be a "barrier removal" issue? Any other means or methods that could compel my client to have to actually increase the size of the shaft in order to comply with current cab size?
No leases will be to health care providers even though there is elevator access. The Owner is not contemplating the removal of the elevator's and frankly I do not believe they could be removed as you would be reducing the accessibility of the building.
The current elevators have all been upgraded with as much of the current technology that these cabs will accept. They all provide a 36" min. clear opening that would allow wheelchair access. The cab size does not allow a 60" turn around. Current cab size is 49.5" wide x 47" deep to control panel. Wheelchair users currently navigate them. The control panels have all been upgraded per current CA code. door operation, floor leveling, hall lanterns, hands free emergency communication, emergency lighting, all the bells and whistles. These buildings have undergone or are currently in the process of substantial remodels. In each case the jurisdictions required accessibility upgrades based upon this new construction. We have been granted "technical in-feasibility" for cab size as major structural work would need to be undertaken in order to increase the shaft size's.
I typically have no answer for what if's on lawsuits, because you can virtually file anything you want. I am just trying to see if any of you fine folks have any experience in this matter. Could someone (successfully) argue that this should be a "barrier removal" issue? Any other means or methods that could compel my client to have to actually increase the size of the shaft in order to comply with current cab size?
No leases will be to health care providers even though there is elevator access. The Owner is not contemplating the removal of the elevator's and frankly I do not believe they could be removed as you would be reducing the accessibility of the building.
