Residential Fire Sprinkler Opponents Never Rest

[Francis Vineyard]

http://preventionconnection.com/2015/05/15/residential-fire-sprinklers/

The process to remove the requirements for residential fire sprinklers from the International Building Code will continue from opponents to the technology. If you are an eligible voter in the ICC Code process on-line voting is going on now.

BACKGROUND:

The proposals of concern relate to permissible use of the IRC, rather than the IBC, for housing of individuals who are not related, including lodging houses, group homes and custodial/medical care facilities. IBC currently permits some of these uses to be constructed under the IRC. In most cases, there is a specific statement in one of the codes that only allows the IRC to be used when sprinklers are provided. Those statements are being attacked as being contrary to fair housing laws. Proponents argue that the IRC requires sprinklers in all new homes, so there’s no reason for the IBC to specifically restate this requirement as a basis of allowing the IRC to be used. However, without these statements, the only remaining sprinkler requirement would be IRC Section 313, and adoption of that section has been legislatively blocked 16 states and delayed in many more. The result…in these 16 states and other jurisdictions that have not yet adopted IRC Section 313, small lodging houses, group homes, and custodial/medical care facilities would be allowed without fire sprinklers.

 

[steveray]

BACKGROUND: We can still build small schools and bars without sprinklers.....If the fire marshals want to take on the "6 unrelated people" enforcement, God bless them.....

 

[mtlogcabin]

From Mr. Shapiro's group

With EVERY national code now requiring EVERY new residential property to be equipped with fire sprinklers, the standard of care to provide fire sprinklers is clearly established and is now well known to the industry, especially given the high profile of HBA opposition to sprinklers. Accordingly, whenever a fire involving a post-2010 home is litigated, perhaps by a grieving family, the family of an injured firefighter or an insurance company seeking to recoup a payout for fire damage, a decision by a builder to omit sprinklers from a new home could be characterized as negligent, with a deliberate indifference towards life and property that resulted in a defective home.

Pretty good scare tactics to use against a builder who is following the adopted law in which he is working.

In reality anybody can be sued for anything so it may happen someday. Would the sueing party be awarded anything will depend on the bleeding heart, emotionally driven people of the jury.

 

[jdfruit]

Any lawsuit filed for builder negligence will have a difficult time in court arguments if the State has deliberately exempted single family homes from requiring fire sprinklers. The "to sprinkle or not" issue has been around quite a number of years now and is one to follow for pro & con. The lawyers will have quite a time arguing "defective" when the inevitable lawsuit arises.

 

[mark handler]

...a decision by a builder to omit sprinklers from a new home could be characterized as negligent...

No more negligent than a buyer, buying a home without them.

 

[Sifu]

No more negligent than a buyer, buying a home without them.

Well said. I still go back and forth on this issue but at the end of the day some responsibility must be on the buyer. Hmmmm, granite tops or fire sprinkler?? I wonder if there are statistics out there for what percentage of those who offered sprinklers as an option/upgrade take it.

 

[steveray]

I do not think a contractor could EVER be found negligent or liable for following the adopted laws or regulations.....