Townhome Deck Collapse and Responsibility 16

[kylesito]

Was recently engaged to come investigate a lower level deck that had partially collapsed. The shear attachment at the ledger sheared off with two individuals standing near the patio door. The ledger was attached with concrete nails at several feet OC.

Thankfully the collapse was limited in that the lower level of the deck was only 2' off the ground and the two individuals weren't hurt. I was engaged by the property manager for that address and we decided it was best to do a complete replacement as we found numerous other problems (bad guardrail, 2nd level ledger attachment significantly under strength, main beam undersized, etc). In every way, these decks were built poorly with no adherence to code or even quality craftsmanship taken into account.

The trouble is, this one deck is one of 200 identical decks in this neighborhood.

Following my report, the property manager for this house notified the HOA but was ignored. I followed up with an email and was told the HOA was still controlled by the developer who is also the property manager of the majority of the homes here as well. This developer is also notorious for not following codes and essentially pays for his numerous lawsuits by building new buildings in the area.

Very troubled by the critical nature of the deficiencies in these decks, I reached out to the City inspectors but was told their jurisdiction doesn't extend to this area of the county.

Through a mutual friend, I sent a brief explanation to the County Commission but was also told there was no code enforcement they could offer.

I'm now at a loss for what I am obligated to do (both by code of ethics and a that of a decent person in the knowledge of a bad issue). This concerns me a lot. There are real problems with these decks and it won't be long before a second story portion collapses. And the nature of the neighborhood is such that there are also many families with young children making the burden even greater.

But I'm stuck. The developer is likely to sue me on some frivolous claim if I notify him of anything. But any public notice or such is bound to get noticed by him first. I am not sure it's appropriate to mail a letter to each owner as it seems as though I'm soliciting services. But I'm left with a huge burden to do something to prevent what I am sure will be a bad situation in the future.

Thoughts?


PE, SE
Eastern United States

"If a builder builds a house for someone, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built falls in and kills its owner, then that builder shall be put to death!"
~Code of Hammurabi

 

[JAE]

Forensic - I'm just going by the OP's description of the situation - obviously I'm not there to observe but he statement was definitive that "this one deck is one of 200 identical decks in this neighborhood.".

If there were 200 houses of very similar (identical?) design - I'd doubt that 200 different contractors built them individually - my guess would be that at least one other - and perhaps up to 2/3 may have been constructed by the same general contractor using the same details and same crews.

Similar to this kind of thing:

You are correct that we can't assert that they are all identical. But I would assert that there is a high probability that some of the 200 are identical.

If one deck collapsed then there is a high probability that others (between one other and perhaps up to 50 or more) might be in the same boat in terms of poor workmanship or design.

Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
faq731-376

 

[Ron]

I agree with JAE....it's an issue in forensic engineering.....it's an issue of extrapolation. I have, on more than one occasion, been accused by opposing parties of "extrapolating data" such as this. We look at the number of subcontractors and their contractors. As JAE notes, if you have 200 of these, there's a high probability (statistically predictable in fact) that many were built the same way, even considering different crews and even different subcontractors. My opinions on these issues have been challenged in depositions and in court and have held.

 

[Forensic74]

Maybe the OP can take a 1/2 hour and walk through the neighborhood and actually see if this is an issue before making a speculative statement that has the risk of turning out as a false alarm based on a guess.

 

[IRstuff]

It's highly likely that a casual look will reveal nothing, unless the decks are naked.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[hokie66]

IRstuff,
Most decks are naked, so I imagine a quick look would be enough to determine how the ledgers are connected.

Forensic74,
Give the OP a break. He knows a lot more about these decks than we do. He just wants some opinions about ethics, which he has received.

 

[IRstuff]

I've been on about 30 decks in the last few months, and only a couple were naked. Lots of people want to see something other than wood above their heads.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[hokie66]

Perhaps we will never know. The OP hasn't checked in since he started the thread.

 

[dik]

Hokie... he's busy delivering letters... He's, likely, picked up a bunch of useful information from this thread...

Dik

 

[IRstuff]

OP hasn't logged in since 6/12

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[JAE]

He never calls, he never writes; comes in - captures our hearts and minds and then just goes away. Sniff sniff.



Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
faq731-376

 

[drawoh]

JAE,

And what is with that code of Hammurabi? Hammurabi specifies that if the building falls down and kills the owner's son, then the builder's son should be killed.

--
JHG

 

[CWB1]

The OP stated that:
1. They contacted the Homeowners Association, (controlled by the developer/builder) with no response.
2. They contacted the county commission with no response.
3. They contacted the city inspectors but found that the city has no jurisdiction.
4. The developer/builder is the property manager of the majority of the homes so has a vested interest (conflict of interest) in NOT responding to challenges to their work.
5. The developer/builder is notorious for not following codes.

So the OP has not really contacted anyone who also has an interest in the public safety & welfare...

Looks like a load of slanderous assumptions based upon gossip and unnecessary self-importance to me, good luck defending the moral high-horse if that ever comes up in court. There's also a glaring mistake. If you reread the OP:

I sent a brief explanation to the County Commission but was also told there was no code enforcement they could offer.

He notified the proper authorities so his obligation is done.

 

[JedClampett]

I'm not too crazy about the letters dropped off at each residence idea. It might seem like a solicitation of work (even though it's not) or get lost in the hundreds of emails, letters and notices people get each day. And legally, has he done enough? Is there a follow up? I've been on juries and lawyers can twist the best intended actions into the most horrible sounding things.
One thing I haven't heard suggested is getting the press involved. If you wrote the letters and went over to the local newspaper and brought them a copy of it, they could put the county, the HOA or the developer on the spot. It's a simple enough story that a reporter could get it (mostly) right. I'm assuming that this is a small enough town or city that this news isn't pushing a murder off the front page. I spend time in a smallish town in Wisconsin and there's these level stories every week in the local paper.

 

[JAE]

He contacted the Homeowners Assoc, the county commission, and city inspectors. Those are not gossip and assumptions - just facts.
The developer/builder as property manager has a vested interest in not responding - again a simple fact...no gossip here.

The fifth item - well, OK, perhaps he's "notorious" and that could be considered "gossip" but item 5 was there to inform the engineer as to probabilities of unsafe conditions - not a vehicle for public proclamation that the develop was a "bad guy".

Here's an interesting link on ASCE's site regarding ethics titled "Silence is Not So Golden":

http://www.asce.org/question-of-ethics-articles/nov-2014/

In it they conclude:
[blue]In view of such risks, how does one determine whether a particular set of facts creates an ethical obligation to speak out? While it is impossible to offer a single test for situations that are invariably complex, an engineer should consider the following:

1. Degree and likelihood of potential harm: At a distance, almost any engineering matter can be viewed as affecting the "public welfare." An undisclosed use of inferior materials in a business warehouse could result in higher maintenance costs for the business, driving up expenses that are then passed on to the public by way of higher prices. But while even a remote and trivial financial consequence could be described as "public harm," it is not the type of harm envisioned in canon 1's clarion call to hold paramount the health, safety, and welfare of the public. Instead, an engineer should consider the extent to which an undisclosed issue poses a serious risk of injury or loss.

2. Level of certainty: It goes without saying that there are many cases in which absolute certainty is impossible, and some of the most notorious engineering failures have involved a failure to act in the absence of irrefutable proof, the space shuttle Challenger being a prime example. However, as set forth in various ethical codes, the obligation to report involves the use of "judgment," "knowledge," and "reason," implying more than a simple feeling or unsupported suspicion of wrongdoing. A good rule of thumb is the reasonable person standard: does the engineer possess sufficient evidence or documentation of a situation that a reasonable person would view as constituting a threat to the public?

3. Exhaustion of other avenues: Before taking his or her concerns to an outside authority or public forum, it is essential for the engineer to explore all available means of resolving the issue by dealing directly with the source. In keeping with an engineer's duties to employers and clients, ASCE's code and other codes stipulate that an engineer must advise employers and clients of the consequences of an ill-advised decision. If an immediate supervisor or manager is unreceptive, the engineer should first consider all other lines of authority within the organization or agency, including internal ethics hotlines or reporting mechanisms and approaches to board members or stockholders.

As a practical matter, any engineer considering whistle-blowing or similar action may wish to first consult an attorney to explore the legal risks and protections related to such an action and to formulate an overall strategy for dealing with untoward consequences. Ultimately, however, the decision of whether to speak out or blow the whistle on a possible threat to the public will be deeply personal. The engineer will have to consider his or her responsibilities to the public and to clients or employers and to fully understand the consequences not only of speaking out but also of remaining silent. [/blue]

Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
faq731-376

 

[JAE]

Here's another ASCE example where an engineer suspected an unsafe, code-violating condition, but was told "it is OK, just keep on as though it's OK".

http://www.asce.org/question-of-ethics-articles/dec-2009/

Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
faq731-376

 

[dik]

JAE... you deserve two stars for that... Great post.

Dik

 

[Ingenuity]

That ASCE example has some cute character names:

County fire official, Bobby Burns, engineer Reilly M. Karful, project manager Dante McWaves, and commissioner Noah Scuses.

 

[CWB1]

Actually JAE that list was full of assumptions and gossip. Per the list above:
1a. Assumes the HOA will respond to unsolicited input to private matters that dont concern the OP. Highly unlikely IME but regardless, still an assumption.
b. Mentions the developer's "control" of the HOA based upon gossip from a property manager who may not even live in the neighborhood.
c. Assumes nobody else at the HOA does their diligence regarding HOA business, communications, etc.
4. Based upon gossip from the same single individual who may not live there, assumes the developer controls the majority of the properties with little/no oversight from the actual owners. Highly unlikely IMHO.
5. Based upon third-party gossip assumes the developer is an unethical POS.

JMO but I dont see any evidence giving reason to doubt the ethics of the developer as the arguments for doing so are based mostly upon gossip and assumption.

 

[dik]

Often condominium board members are not even residents... The object of the exercise is to inform essential people... it doesn't matter if its unsolicited or if they do nothing... if they do nothing and someone is injured, then, it makes for a far more interesting court case.

Dik

 

[JAE]

CWB1
OK - I'm not here saying that I know for certain that these decks are definitely built poorly. The OP more than once asserts that these decks (plural) have problems. So all my comments were based on the assumption that more than one deck had problems. Based on that FACT I still assert that some action is required by a licensed engineer beyond an email or two.

Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
faq731-376