Engineer of record responsibility

[nickky]

Hi Everyone!

I have a house addition project under construction. The owner gave me a letter telling " The attic area is covered by plywood without engineer's approval". He plans to use the attic as an extra storage while I haven't design it for that load.
Now what should be my response, if he tries to take the resposibility by giving me the letter?

 

[jike]

I am confused! Are you the contractor or engineer?

I think you may be talking about liability here rather than responsibility, although they are closely related. If the Owner is intending something that you did not approve of, I would make that clearly known. You might also say that it can be done for additional money. Reference the code section where it must be designed specifically for more load to accomodate storage.

Before you escalate the situation, make sure you have gotten paid then copy the building inspector if need be!

 

[nickky]

Thank you Jike for your comment.

By the Way, I am the engineer of record. I guess my question more specificly is the following:

" When a homeowner (Client) wants to do something which is not per approved plans and he wants to "kind of" take the responsibility or liability, Aren't we supposed to stand against it?

The fact is that covering the attic floor by plywood is not against the code and even the inspector can not stop it. It is the future usage of that area which is going to introduce risk to the structure.

 

[DonPhillips]

Some jurisdictions require (for those I am/was building official) a sign be placed near the attic access that the attic cannot be used for storage. If the trusses/ceiling joists were designed for 20 psf live load, no sign was necessary. This condition was also placed on the C of O.

Sign or no sign, no one can stop a homeowner from storing up there.

You may want to write a clarifying letter to the owner to cover yourself.


Don Phillips

http://worthingtonengineering.com

 

[Atomic25]

Would this not fall under the "protect the public" creed? I dont care how stupid the owner is. If the roof caves in while he's got fifty people in the house for a graduation party, you're liable if you knew about it and didn't take it to the authorities. It's one thing if he does it on his own without you knowing but I think it's completely wrong if you're given documentation and look the other way.

 

[JAE]

I think you simply write a letter to the homeowner stating clearly that the attic cannot carry more than x amount of load (10 psf?). Beyond that, you can't really go to the city/authority with a speculation that the homeowner MAY misuse the space by overloading.

All you can do it notify the owner of the house what his physicaly limitations are.

How would you know if the homeowner is really loading the attic beyond x psf? Get a warrant to investigate?

 

[Atomic25]

I don't think it's speculation if the owner hands you a letter stating his intent as the OP indicated.

The owner may think he's relieving the engineer of liability with the letter, while in reality is actually dragging him into it.

 

[csd72]

Tell them the consequences in writing, then tell them verbally not to get you involved if they decide to proceed with it anyway.

If you get involved then you have to resolve it properly.

Also, you may want to tell then to do it after final inspection, so that you do not have to approve the building like that.

 

[jike]

If his letter is unclear in the least or implies liability on your part, I would respond back to him in writing.

 

[UcfSE]

I agree with JAE. My first instinct was copy the building department with your letter, but you really don't know what's going on. Does the owner know the difference between storage to us (could be 125 psf), and storage for the Christmas decorations, baby stuff, spare floor tiles and the like? Maybe you're talking about two different things.

If the letter stated the guy wanted to store extra cmu block or create another living space, or something that you knew was too heavy, you might have an argument for notifying someone other than the owner, imo. Many people store things in the attic by laying down plywood. Storage to them and storage per the code live load isn't always the same thing.

 

[jike]

Live loads for residential per the IBC is:

uninhabitable attics without storage 10 psf

uninhabitable attics with storage 20 psf

not 125 psf

 

[nickky]

Hello Gentlmen:

First of all, I would like to thank each and every of you who tried to help me with valuable comments and suggestions. I did read each comment very carefully and thought about them. Because this is not a question for this specific case only, but also it is an important lesson for the future too.

I think by blending what I read so far and what I think personally, the best policy is to explain the owner in writing that since there is no officially accepted method to limit or police the storage usage (i.e. the magnitude of storage load) the plywood shall be removed for me to be able to approve the construction.

Personally, I do believe that as Professional Engineers who know and understand better about the loads/structures/behaviors and failer consiquences, we have ethical responsibility to stop/prohibit non-safe applications/practices/......

Thank you again
Vanik Abedian
Kartez Engineering, Inc.

 

[CJJS]

I agree with JAE. I think that not approving construction based upon the plywood covering the attic area is a bit extreme. I have seen many attics with plywood covering them simply for walking access (not necessarily for storage). If you assume that the presence of plywood covering an attic means there will be storage exceeding the code minimum design load, you'd never approve any construction project. Writing a letter to the owner indicating what the design load is is enough to cover yourself.

 

[msquared48]

I also agree with JAE, but would go one step further.

I would submit a copy of the letter to the local building department and have it notarized and filed as a legal document, permanently attached to the jurisdictional file for that particular residence, so that upon any title search in any future sale, that document will come up. In this way, your responsibility to communicate with the "homeowner", no matter whom they are, is satisfied.

Courts view it as your responsibility to communicate to the homeowner any restrictions or limitations, not the homeowners to ask you for such. You, as the design professional, have the burden of proof should anything happen. Cover your ars.

Mike McCann
McCann Engineering

 

[PatBethea]

This thread goes to prove that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. It's a house! People store things in the attics of their houses and they don't need a structural engineer's permission to do so. What I see most of you proposing is for the government to get more involved with our day-to-day lives than they already are. Forget engineering judgement - use some common sense.

 

[JAE]

What I see most of you proposing is for the government to get more involved with our day-to-day lives than they already are.

I didn't propose that. I think the focus was on what to do as an ethical engineer to safeguard the public. Even though it's a house, the original poster was an engineer who was involved in the design.

Just trying to do the right thing as an engineer isn't being a pro-government cheerleader.

 

[PatBethea]

Allright, I should have said "some" instead of "most".

My point stands - it's a house. If the structure won't handle normal household attic storage, it's designed way too close to the margins to begin with. And yes, I know, there will be those who require that "normal" be spelled out in some code or standard - but it doesn't have to be that hard. Common sense is all it takes sometimes.

Safeguarding the public does not mean that we need to act as nannys and spell out exactly what an owner can and cannot do with their property. We've got enough laws/rules/codes for that as it is. In this particular case - we've not been presented with the layout, but I'm guessing that once construction is complete, it will be impossible, or nearly so, to get full sheets of plywood up into the space to act as a floor. Requiring their removal to "safeguard the public" is ridiculous.

 

[Lion06]

PatBethea-
Additionally, most houses aren't engineered.
If one is and there is a failure then the engineer is on the hook.

 

[csd72]

The design is your responsibility, what gets done with the building afterwards is not.

keep photographs on file of the attic without the boarding and you can then claim ignorance.

 

[DonPhillips]

I think we are overanalyzing this a bit as well. If an engineer came to me (building official) with the issue, I could only enforce what the code specifically says. And there is nothing prohibiting the plywood. Placing some document in file does not really help either.

Telling a cop your neighbor speeds down the street is one thing (in plain, visible sight) but telling him he beats his wife would invite claims of privacy violations trying to gather that evidence.

If there is a failure, and the owner wants someone else to pay for it when he caused it, this would bring out the lawyers and forensic engineers. I think there would be enough evidence to suggest the owner caused his failure and any civil case would be not be successful. When I did forensic engineering for a short while, I saw many property owners trying to get money from insurance companys for not maintaining a house. Few went to court since even the lawyers knew a payday was probable.

Don Phillips

http://worthingtonengineering.com