2007 California Building Code Available For Free
The Public.Resource.Org is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization committed to making the governing laws of the U.S.A. available to the public that those laws apply to. As they point out here, there are numerous companies that profit greatly by making these documents available (West Law, Lexis Nexis), but at a high cost. It is the opinion of Public.Resource.Org that these laws, court decisions, codes belong to the people and therefore should be freely available to the people, not “locked up behind a cash register.” And this isn’t uncharted waters, either as pointed out below:
In Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress, 293 F.3d 791, the United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, met en banc “because of the novelty and importance of the issues” presented before the court:
“The issue in this en banc case is the extent to which a private organization may assert copyright protection for its model codes, after the models have been adopted by a legislative body and become ‘the law’. Specifically, may a code-writing organization prevent a website operator from posting the text of a model code where the code is identified simply as the building code of a city that enacted the model code as law?”
In an exhaustive opinion that carefully traced the reasons why our laws must be public, the Honorable Chief Judge Edith H. Jones stated the conclusion of the court:
“Our short answer is that as law, the model codes enter the public domain and are not subject to the copyright holder’s exclusive prerogatives.”
So without further ado, please take the time to download the full set of the 2007 California Building Code, made available by Carl Malamud of the Public.Resource.Org as a gift to the public in honor of this country’s Declaration of Independence.
P.S. - Laws cannot be copyrighted.
5 July 2008 | posted by SHCC Webmaster | Construction, Construction and Law, General, Litigation | No Comments
Tom Hanks Loses Home Construction Lawsuit
Tom Hanks and Rita Wilson have been in a dispute with Ketchum, Idaho based Storey Construction, Inc. over the construction of their Sun Valley, Idaho home. Hanks and his wife were ordered to pay $1.85M to the firm in 2004, but filed a request for arbitration, alleging latent defects. After the first request for arbitration was rejected, a second request was filed in December of 2007. That request has now been rejected as well and attorneys from the construction company will seek attorney fees and other damages as a result.
“A Blaine County judge has rejected Tom Hanks’ second request for arbitration over what the actor says was $2.5 million in faulty workmanship by the construction company that built his sprawling compound north of this central Idaho resort town.
“Following the decision, a lawyer for the construction company said it will seek monetary damages from Hanks and his wife, Rita Wilson, for what it alleges was “abuse of process” for filing the second arbitration request.”
27 June 2008 | posted by SHCC Webmaster | Construction, Construction Defect, Construction and Law, General, Litigation | No Comments
Watch Fire Researchers Torch Homes, Offices and Warehouses
Wired Magazine has a video gallery profiling the testing and analysis work conducted at the NIST’s Building and Fire Research Laboratory’s Fire Dynamics and Smokeview software modeling and laboratory fire testing experiments. The BFRL provide invaluable data for manufacturers, contractors and others in the building industry to further fire safety standards and practices. And how can one go wrong watching researchers getting paid to burn all manner of things in the name of science?
“To model how flames turn buildings into ashes, the nation’s leading fire researchers don’t play with matches over the sink. Instead they burn down entire homes, cubicles and warehouses.
“At the National Institutes of Standards and Technologies, researchers set huge fires under a 40-foot-long by 30-foot-wide exhaust hood that is connected to an $8 million control unit.
21 June 2008 | posted by SHCC Webmaster | Construction, Construction Defect, Consulting, Experts, General, Inspections, Technology | No Comments
Concrete Testing at Yankee Stadium and Freedom Tower Is Scrutinized
“Manhattan prosecutors are investigating whether the leading concrete testing company in the New York area, which has been hired to measure and analyze the strength of the concrete poured at some of the biggest construction projects in the city, failed to do some tests and falsified others, officials involved in the inquiry said on Friday.
“The investigation has uncovered problems with tests the company conducted on concrete poured over the last two years at the new Yankee Stadium in the Bronx and the foundation of the Freedom Tower in Lower Manhattan, along with as many as a dozen other projects, said several of the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is continuing.
“The investigation has also raised questions about past work done by the company, Testwell Laboratories Inc., at a wide range of sites around the city. Construction and inspection practices in the city are already under scrutiny as a result of a series of fatal accidents and arrests on corruption charges.”
This article is fascinating on a number of levels. First, who would have thought that the New York Times would run an article that goes into such detail about concrete testing, specifically slump tests? Secondly, and perhaps more notable, law enforcement is conducting an investigation into the practices of a noted high profile concrete testing firm. But it isn’t just any law enforcement division, it is the Manhattan District Attorney Office’s Labor Racketeering Unit. Racketeering? That’s a serious charge.
It should be noted that Testwell Laboratories, Inc. (website appears to be down - here is the Google cache of the site) provides much more than concrete testing, offering a full range of testing services including geotechnical, metallurgy, construction materials, petrographic and chemical. Testwall Laboratories, Inc. describes itself (ironically) as “an independent full-service testing, inspection, quality control and quality assurance organization that has earned a valued reputation for reliability and professionalism in the construction industry“. [Emphasis added.]
21 June 2008 | posted by SHCC Webmaster | Construction, Construction Defect, Construction and Law, Consulting, Inspections, Litigation | No Comments
How Not To Transport A Ladder
24 May 2008 | posted by SHCC Webmaster | Construction, Experts, General, Inspections, Photography | No Comments
Photos: The Contractor Read the Plans a Tad Too Literally…
The great folks over at the Washington Construction Law Blog posted a series of photos entitled, “the contractor read the plans a tad too literally.” Although humorous, this is actually a common situation that has led to more than a few construction defects. Sometimes the construction documents produced by the architect are a little vague or even misleading, but that is no excuse for the contractor failing to call such an oversight into question. This process is formalized in most prime contracts (the contract between the owner/developer and the general contractor) and in most standard architectural contracts - typically in the form of the RFI, or Request For Information. Sure, not all architects are infallible, but what were these contractors thinking? In the end it is the contractor that is tasked with the responsibility for the final product.
24 May 2008 | posted by SHCC Webmaster | Construction, Construction Defect, Construction and Law, Design, General, Litigation | No Comments
Sacramento Business Journal: Construction Defect Litigation
This is an interesting article by Kelly Johnson from the Sacramento Business Journal that discusses the state of the construction defect litigation industry with regards to the key factors that are currently in play: the home buying slowdown, SB800, and the insurance industry.
California’s residential construction industry is approaching uncharted waters as a housing slump, tight liability insurance coverage and new laws for handling construction defect litigation all collide.
The collision makes an already challenging business environment fraught with even more danger. Some attorneys, especially those representing subcontractors, say they fear for their clients’ future.
“This is going to be a big problem,” said Blane Smith, an insurance-coverage attorney.
21 May 2008 | posted by SHCC Webmaster | Construction, Construction Defect, Construction and Law, Consulting, Experts, Litigation | No Comments
Full Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Affirms Lower Court’s Holding in Garcia v. Brockway
“In a case that is being closely watched in the multi-family housing industry, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday released its opinion affirming the lower court’s holding that the 2-year statute of limitations for a private civil action alleging violation of the Fair Housing Act’s accessibility requirements for design and construction is triggered, i.e., the violation is complete, at the conclusion of the design and construction phase, which occurs on the date the last certificate of occupancy is issued.”
It seems that for the foreseeable future, accessibility claims under Fair Housing Act will be subject to a two year statute of limitations after all. This means that plaintiffs only have two years from the occupancy date to file a claim for such violations. This is quite favorable for developers, contractors and designers but may go against the intent of the Fair Housing Act, as illustrated by dissenting Circuit Court Judge, Hon. Judge Fisher:
“The majority erroneously treats a building’s improper design and construction as the event that triggers the Fair Housing Act’s (FHA) two-year statute of limitations. It does so by finding an ambiguity in the statute and then resolving that ambiguity contrary to the overall purpose and structure of the FHA and its legislative and judicial history.
“I believe instead that the most plausible reading of the statute is that the limitations period begins (at the earliest) when a disabled person actually experiences discrimination — either in attempting to buy or rent a noncompliant housing unit, in “testing” such a unit or upon moving in as a tenant.
In other words, Fisher feels that the two year statute should begin following discovery of such a violation. However the majority opinion from the Ninth Circuit felt that this two year statute should begin once the work is done. So what happens if a property is completed, but nobody moves in for two years? According to this decision, if there is a violation of the Fair Housing Act that creates a situation that is discriminatory, nothing happens at all.
Link to Article, Link to Post from Ninth Circuit Opinions Blog, Link to Opinion (PDF)
13 May 2008 | posted by SHCC Webmaster | Construction, Construction Defect, Construction and Law, Design, Experts, General, Inspections, Litigation | No Comments
The 50 Major Engineering Failures 1977-2007
A fascinating list of the most significant engineering failures over the last three decades compiled by Muhammed Abduh at the Integrity Engineering Blog.
11 May 2008 | posted by SHCC Webmaster | Construction, Construction Defect, Experts, General | No Comments
Creative Home Engineering - One of a Kind
This doesn’t have much to do with construction defects, but it is interesting nonetheless. Creative Home Engineering creates secret passageways, and they do it with style. Below is a quote from an older article that appeared in Phoenix’s East Valley Tribune:
“After crossing the short hallway to the master suite, she shows off her bedroom, the beautiful master bathroom, the seethrough gas fireplace and connected patio space. Then she leads her guest up a short flight of stairs to the exercise room, with gorgeous views of the Red Mountains. Coming back down the stairs she pulls from her pocket what looks like a car door remote. She stands back, presses one of the buttons and says, ‘And this is the secret room.’
“The stair case begins to raise and below it is a another set of stairs, this one leading down to a small dark room the same size and shape as the exercise room above it.
“‘Watch your head,’ says Kircher as she crouchees slightly and makes her way down the stairs.”
Link to Creative Home Engineering website, Link to Creative Home Engineering Gallery, East Valley Tribune article, Link to CNBC video, from Gizmodo
1 May 2008 | posted by SHCC Webmaster | Construction, Design, General, Technology | No Comments
