• 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

See Ya In COURT !!!

F

forensics

Bronze Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
95
Location
The holy City CHARLESTON SC
I hate to break it to yall but the sprinkler issue is headed to a new arena

This is where it will be finished

Ya better continue to get ready to install sprinklers in new houses !

Reprint from the Jan 2011 issue of PM Engineer

The Engineering Dilemma

As of Jan. 1, the 2009 International Residential Code mandates residential fire sprinklers in all one- and two-family dwellings. Photo courtesy of Uponor

by Julius Ballanco, P.E., CPD

Posted: January 1, 2011

There is no excuse not to include residential fire sprinklers in your designs.

Happy New Year! With the ringing in of Jan. 1, 2011, all of us in the engineering profession have been presented with a dilemma. I should indicate that this dilemma extends to architects, as well. You may be wondering what the concern is.

On Jan. 1, the 2009 ICC International Residential Code mandates residential sprinklers in all one- and two-family dwellings. The IRC had already mandated residential sprinklers in townhouses.

Prior to Jan. 1, the ICC International Building Code required sprinkler protection in all residential buildings. Furthermore, NFPA 5000 has always required all residential buildings to be protected with a residential sprinkler system.

The next edition of the IRC will be the 2012 edition. That is scheduled for publication later this year. The 2012 edition of the IRC also mandates residential sprinklers for all one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses.

As professional engineers, our first obligation is to the public, not our client. We are also required to follow accepted engineering practice. Accepted engineering practice means we have to follow the guidelines produced and developed by our industry. That includes the IRC, IBC and NFPA 5000.

What all this means is that from this day forward if you are involved in the design of systems in any one- or two-family dwelling or townhouse, you need to include a residential sprinkler system.

If you do not, you are jeopardizing your engineering license by not upholding your first obligation to protect the public, plus not upholding your obligations to follow accepted engineering practice.

The builder may not follow your plans. He may choose not to install the residential sprinkler system, but that is OK. You did your duty by showing the system on the plans.

The liability shifts to the builder if he chooses not to install the residential sprinkler system. I plan to also cover my bases by sending a letter to the builder or developer indicating that sprinklers are required.

Some Disagree

I was speaking to an engineering colleague last week regarding this very issue. He disagrees with me, saying that if the state or local politicians delete the sprinkler requirements from the code, the engineer has no obligation to design the system. There is no denying that the various state home builders’ associations have been spending millions lobbying their politicians to have the requirement removed from the adoption of the 2009 IRC.

Just because politicians do something that many of us consider stupid, it does not reduce the liability of professional engineers to do what they are charged to do.

In other words, we must protect the public.

I cannot fathom how any engineer could declare that residential sprinklers do not protect the public.

Litigation Waiting To Happen

I am sure some, or many, smart attorneys are just waiting in the wings for the first fire death in a home built after Jan. 1, 2011. I hate to say it, but it will unfortunately have to involve a fire death. With around 3,000 fire deaths a year in residential buildings, it won’t take long for a test case.

Having been involved in a number of lawsuits as an expert witness, I can envision the questions the attorney would ask.

Question: Mr. Ballanco, doesn’t the 2009 IRC require all one- and two-family dwellings to be sprinklered after Jan. 1, 2011?

Answer: Yes, but that section was stricken from the IRC when it was adopted by the state.

Question: Oh, so politicians receiving money from the home builder lobbyists voted to strike the sprinkler requirement, is that correct?

Answer: Yes.

Question: So, you just followed what the politicians adopted for protection of the single-family dwelling?

Answer: Yes, that is all that is required. We just have to follow the adopted code.

Question: You don’t have any obligation beyond following the code?

Answer: No.

Question: What is the requirement in your engineering licensing law whereby you have the obligation to protect the public?

Answer: That is true. We do that by following the code.

Question: But you didn’t follow the code. You followed what the politicians, receiving funding from home builder lobbyists, changed in the code, didn’t you?

Answer: The code is what the elected officials enact. It did not require residential sprinklers. That is what I followed.

Question: But the code, without amendments, developed by your profession, would require sprinklers for this home, wouldn’t it?

Answer: Yes, but I am not obligated to follow that code.

Question: If sprinklers were installed in this home, would there have been a fire death?

Answer: I don’t know.

Question: You don’t know, but you are an engineer. Shouldn’t you know?

Answer: Every fire is different.

Question: Has there ever been a fire death in a home, with sprinklers, experiencing the same fire as this home?

Answer: Not that I know of.

Question: So you just ignored your obligation as a licensed professional engineer to protect the public?

Include Sprinklers In Your Designs

That last question is what attorneys call a “got ya” question. How do you answer the question? If you have a good answer, then there shouldn’t be a problem with designing plumbing and mechanical systems in residential buildings and homes without including a residential sprinkler system.

If you are like me, you will be including a residential sprinkler system in residential buildings that you design. I know that residential sprinklers will protect the occupants of any residential building.

I also know that there will not be any fire deaths that will result in a trial.

Hence, I don’t fear any such line of questioning, because it will never occur.

Starting today, you should reduce your liability by providing a sprinkler system design for every residential building you design.

After all, that is what the documents that we develop require.

I am not going to leave my fate to some politician who doesn’t know a thing about construction safety.

Julius Ballanco, P.E., CPD

jbengineer@aol.com

Julius Ballanco, P.E., is Editorial Director of PM Engineer and president of J.B. Engineering and Code Consulting, P.C. in Munster, IN. Prior to starting J.B. Engineering, he served as head of plumbing and mechanical engineering for Building Officials and Code Administrators International, one of the organizations that formed the International Code Council (ICC). His engineering consulting work includes the design of plumbing, mechanical and fire-protection systems; forensic engineering; training; and serving numerous manufacturers in different capacities. In addition, Ballanco is the current president of ASPE and a member of both ICC and IAPMO. He can be reached by e-mail at jbengineer@aol.com.
 
I don't disagree that the homebuilder's association is pushing hard to remove sprinklers, but I DO take exception to your statement that the code is adopted in the States by a body of politicians that have no clue and also the deciding body is getting bribed. Some states have boards that adopt the codes and the boards contain people experienced in construction including fire protection engineers and the fire services.
 
"As professional engineers, our first obligation is to the public, not our client. We are also required to follow accepted engineering practice. Accepted engineering practice means we have to follow the guidelines produced and developed by our industry. That includes the IRC, IBC and NFPA 5000."

I will disagree. One cannot serve two masters. The one who pays me gets my service. They also get the services provided by my insurer.

Since the IRC and IBC and NFPA seem to change their views from time to time, they do not seem to reflect accepted engineering practice. If I have the right to believe their prescriptions are "not safe enough," I also have the right to believe that they are "too safe."

The comments by Julius Ballanco are as self-serving as those of any other publicist.
 
I agree with GHRoberts. If we were designing schools based upon Mr Ballanco then should we design them with metal detectors at every means of egress and issue bullet proof vests to all that enter? The argument could be made in a "court of law" that we knew that such events do occur in schools and should have used due care in the execution of our profession.

He seems to forget that not all states have adopted the same building codes. Massachusetts for instance just adopted the 2009 IRC for residential construction WITH Massachusetts Amendments that make changes to the IRC. The IRC in itself is a consensus standard until adopted by a legal governing body that gives it the weight of law.

We design based upon the codes and regulations that affect the project, along with good engineering practices, with everything being balanced with the needs and budget of our client. We can design a home to withstand a tornado, but what if your area does not suffer from tornados?

At least that is my humble opinion.
 
See Ya in court. Laughable at best. Obviously the author resides behind a desk and is out of touch with the real world. You only have to research how many communities have amended the stair geometry from 7 3/4r x 10 td to realize NOBODY will be sued over NOT requiring installation of residential sprinklers. Once again hollow scare tactics from desperate losers.
 
As a Fire Protection Engineer I find that I can not fully agree with either side of this discussion.



In the design of any building (commercial or residential) I know that I must follow a standard of care (Due Diligence). The design shall consider the regulatory requirements as adopted by law. The design should also include peer documents that are not regulatory, but provide additional considerations. Lastly, I should consider good fire protection practices.

If I completed a residential design and I did not include sprinkler protection and that decision followed the standard of care, I could stand up in court and support that conclusion.

However, I do that with the knowledge that the other side will have a professional expert with a different opinion.

I have provided technical expert consultation to law firms on building construction defect issues and lined up against other technical expert consultants.

In my design and oversight of construction projects I consider:

1. Regulatory Requirements

2. Peer Documentation that additional useful value in regards to the subject matter.

3. Good Engineering Practices

I do these things because an Engineer is supposed to do more than simply putting together a design (cad work). An engineer is supposed to know the basis and the intent of the design. To that end I know the following:

· Smoke Detectors/Alarms are the primary method of notification to building occupants of a fire condition. Smoke Detectors do not normally provide a method of suppression (unless connected to a suppression system).

· Fire Sprinkler Systems are normally used for the protection of property, and in some cases for the safe egress of building occupants (residential), sprinkler systems are not designed to notify occupants of a fire.

· The use of both smoke detectors and sprinkler systems provide the most substantial coverage for notification, egress protection and suppression.

As an engineer I perform a function for my client, with the understanding that if my client were fully knowledgeable in the design basis then my client would not need me. If my client were to ask me to remove any building element that served to protect my client, I would be duty bound to discuss the issue with my client. If at the point where the client did not care or simply did not want the building element, then I would have to decide if I wanted to continue to provide service. I might also ask for a signed waiver to demonstrate that I had properly advised the client.

As a Fire Protection Engineer I may be sitting across the court room in your trial discussing Due Diligence. In my testimony I will rely on those items (1-3) listed above in regard to the design. I will also consider the facts listed above. Then a jury of your peers will decide what they believe. It could go either way.
 
Sounds like cottage industry similar to a professional expert witness purporting that any stair that is not EXACTLY 7-11 is death waiting to happen.
 
All you engineers and architects better start paying more attention to stair geometry. After all 7/11 is recognized as a safer standard than 7 3/4 x 10. Think I'll go find me an ambulance chaser and a "dangerous" stairway or two. Early retirement here I come!! Not.
 
All stair statistic are based upon a range of shoe sizes. My 14's are well outside the norm, but I manage to safety use stairs, 7-11 or not.
 
Architects and engineers should sleep well if they have complied with the building code requirements adopted by their local and where more restrictive the requirements of their client.
 
A professional designer is supposed to complete a desisn that meets MINIMUM code requirements unless instructed by his client to exceed the MINIMUM requirements. To do otherwise is doing nothing more than increasing the cost of the project and the funding for the PD's 401(k).
 
FM, Thanks

Incognito,

I do not know if you are a designer or if you have ever worked with the requirements for Licensing Engineers and Architects. I am a P.E. and I have studied the Licensing laws in a number of states. I do not know where you got your requirement for designers to meet the minimun code as the only requirement, perhaps you could enlighten us with the specific regulatory statement.
 
Oregon has a min-maxi code. They only have to design to the minimum in Oregon. Scare tactics at its best.
 
I am a licensed engineer and I have read the state laws related to the practice of engineering.

The state can only enforce those regulations that have been formally adopted.

When dealing with issues of negligence the courts take the position that the state or local jurisdiction, when adopting the building code, have made the decision how to blance the competing interests. There may be exemptions but they would be when the adopted regulations were much lower than the model codes even without residential fire sprinklers.

Admittedly a professional society could sanction you for whatever they wish but I do not see it has happening if you did not require residential fire sprinklers when not mandated by law and if they did so you can easily ignore their sanction.

As for the argument that you have a moral obligation to install residential fire sprinklers well that is between yourself and your deity.
 
Here in SC the 2009 IRC was adopted therefore it IS the adopted code

The problem is that our legislature was bought off by the SC HBA (to the tune of $400,000.00) and they bowed to the SC HBA by amending the code section of the law to specifically state that "no local code official CAN REQUIRE residential sprinklers.

They did not change the fact that the duely adopted code still requires residential sprinklers.

The legislature did not give "professional liability relief" to those who elect build substandard homes and the state that has the most vunerable law rewrite and the strongest code adoption will be ground zero for the landmark case that awards huge damages against the builder and possibly the HBA for 1) Failing to build to the adopted code and 2) Intentionally diseminating information that they knew was false to their membership who in turn used that information to make decisions that resulted in death to their homebuyer client and damages to their building business.

You can bet the sprinkler advocates will take the argument to a small builder who is unable to defend himself against the NFSA, AFSA and numerous other sprinkler advocates that can well afford the fight. That decision will be used to set the presedent to take on the production builders. If the local builder is crushed the production guys probably will not take the chance...but we will all just have to wait and see.

Just a thought ... How much choice does the second purchaser of a home have and what is the responsibility of the designer and builder to that family (the public)?

Incognito ... have you ever considered getting some help with your unresolved anger issues SHEESH!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yankee said:
I don't disagree that the homebuilder's association is pushing hard to remove sprinklers, but I DO take exception to your statement that the code is adopted in the States by a body of politicians that have no clue and also the deciding body is getting bribed. Some states have boards that adopt the codes and the boards contain people experienced in construction including fire protection engineers and the fire services.
Click to expand...
MA has the BBRS, mostly independant that looks at and ammends(sometimes hacks up) the code before adoption. No sprinklers here.
 
bgingras

We have a simular set up here too. We have a Building Codes Council who amends and adopts the current codes through a process that allows input from any and all parties who have interest in the industry.

The SC BCC also considers each proposed amandment and then votes on each and every proposal making the process a tedious but effective process that serves the code officials and the pubic well as well as the builders.

That SC BCC is comprised of a panel of 12 of so industry professionals who are well schyooled in both the practical and conceptual aspects of the codes being considered.

That panel and council adopted the RFS provisions after hearing all the evidence and facts for all sides of the issue but the legislature then responded to the $400,000 plus in "campaign contributions" by writing a loophole law to circumvent the code and overide the experts in the field.

The most vocal opponent of the sprinkler implemintation was censured by the ethics committee in our SC Senate for "exceeding the allowable limits" of campaign contributions from guess who! THE SC HBA !

SHEESH!
 
forensics said:
Just a thought ... How much choice does the second purchaser of a home have and what is the responsibility of the designer and builder to that family (the public)?Incognito ... have you ever considered getting some help with your unresolved anger issues SHEESH!
Click to expand...
I took the liberty of editing out most of the rambling, irrelevant wall of words that you wrote.

However, I will respond to your question. The second purchaser has exactly the same choice as the first; they can buy or not buy.

Anger issues? Are you kidding me? You are the one who came in hurling adversarial and insulting comments. You are a troll. I don't know what the hell you're accusing incognito of; it's you who clearly has some serious issues.
 
forensics said:
bgingrasWe have a simular set up here too. We have a Building Codes Council who amends and adopts the current codes through a process that allows input from any and all parties who have interest in the industry.

The SC BCC also considers each proposed amandment and then votes on each and every proposal making the process a tedious but effective process that serves the code officials and the pubic well as well as the builders.

That SC BCC is comprised of a panel of 12 of so industry professionals who are well schyooled in both the practical and conceptual aspects of the codes being considered.

That panel and council adopted the RFS provisions after hearing all the evidence and facts for all sides of the issue but the legislature then responded to the $400,000 plus in "campaign contributions" by writing a loophole law to circumvent the code and overide the experts in the field.

The most vocal opponent of the sprinkler implemintation was censured by the ethics committee in our SC Senate for "exceeding the allowable limits" of campaign contributions from guess who! THE SC HBA !

SHEESH!
Click to expand...
It appears you are unhappy with the outcome of legislation. I would suggest that you spend some time looking into how you can influence legislation.

---

My wife is a licensed professional in a non-construction field. Each year she goes to her professions state regulatory board's meeting and explains why she is opposed to changes in the profession's regulations. She spends a full day for her 10 minutes of speaking time.

One of her clients was a legislator (term limited out of office). This client used to send my wife copies of legislation (written by the state regulating board) that affected her profession. She would comment on how the legislation affected her profession in general (never her in particular). The client had enough power in the legislature that my wife's unbiased comments tended to affect the legislation.

Because of her action before the governing board my wife is well enough known that newspapers and TV stations call on her for information and opinion.

I would suggest anyone who thinks that legislation is adversely affecting the safety of our homes and businesses should provide rational and unbiased information to anyone who has the power to make or stop changes. Make a lot of rational noise.
 
The premise of the argument made in the OP is ridiculous and abusive. Building and fire safety codes are still essentially regional, by state adoption, under our system of law.

Mr. Ballanco spewing blame in the event of an accidental death doesn't change the law, or our obligations under it. Mr. Ballanco's spewing just makes Mr. Ballanco an a-hole.
 
Respectfully, let's also be careful not to over-moderate because of our interest in a subject. Nothing will kill a forum quicker than heavy handed moderation, and Jeff certainly intends for this to be an open forum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top