Working On House with Modified Trusses, yes or no? 6

[engineerED930]

Hello All,
I have a question about a job I turned down. I would appreciate your feedback. I looked at a potential client's 1-story house where they wanted to open up an exterior load bearing wall to open up their kitchen (Basically using a header to create opening). Next to the kitchen was the living room which had a cathedral ceiling, but the cathedral was made by field modifying trusses obviously without an engineer's design or stamp. I told the customer that the field modified trusses would need to be analyzed and repaired if needed before any load bearing wall work began.

My gut told me it was too risky. Did I overthink this?

 

[jerseyshore]

That is fair. Different if you didn't see it and just designed a header in a different area.

I always look at these things as I'm not risking my license for some bozo who butchers trusses. Once you lay eyes on it you are always the "I had an engineer look at it" guy. And I never lose sleep over it because there is always another engineer out there who doesn't give a shit and will sign off on anything for them.

 

[phamENG]

I think it depends. Generally speaking, I think you did the right thing. But there's something to be said for having the conversation with the client and making sure understand the problem. If they do, and they agree, and are willing to pay what it takes for you to design it properly and for a good contractor to come in and fix it, then by all means take the project. But, sadly, most homeowners will balk at that price tag.

 

[XR250]

If you are not making the situation any worse by opening the wall and you have documented the potential defect with the homeowners, I don't see the issue.

 

[Eng16080]

I told the customer that the field modified trusses would need to be analyzed and repaired if needed before any load bearing wall work began.

I would have told them the same, but unless I got a bad feeling about the client, I don't think I'd necessarily turn the project down at that point. I'd probably give a healthy fee and explain my approach and why the fee is so high. Some clients won't want to spend any money, but others do in fact want things to be done right and are willing to pay for that.

The point by pham is also a really good one concerning having a good contractor involved. I recently had a small residential project with a great client and a fee that made the job worthwhile, but the concrete sub really screwed up bad. For non high-end residential, some of these contractors are complete hacks.

Also, nothing wrong with trusting your gut on this!

 

[Flotsam7018]

If it didn't feel right, passing on the job is probably the best call for you personally. However, why did you feel the trusses need to be analyzed - simply because it's non standard construction or were there signs of deficiency observed? If it's been performing adequately for some time, I generally do not require upgrades.

 

[GaStruct]

Once you lay eyes on it you are always the "I had an engineer look at it" guy.

This is the key right here. In my world of logic and ethics, there's nothing wrong with telling the homeowner your concerns and still doing the project since it doesn't affect what has already been done. The homeowner is responsible for getting it fixed if they choose. However, what I deem the correct approach and what the state/board/courts deem correct are two different things. I try to look at things from the government's lens to mitigate liability. If anything with the modified trusses happens in the future, even if your scope had nothing to do with it, you will be roped into the headache.

 

[engineerED930]

All of your input is really helpful, I appreciate it. I was looking at it through the lens of avoiding unwarranted liability and headaches.