If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
|
Posted by RicodJour on October 14, 2009, 11:11 am
> > > Agree with John and Bob. I would also say the contractor is not
> > > responsible for this. As others have pointed out, wiring is supposed
> > > to be run far enough back that a finishing nail from molding can't
> > > reach it or else have a metal plate covering it.
> > Yep. Even if you had a contract, and the contract was any good,
> > there'd be a clause in there about "latent and concealed conditions".
> > The contractor doesn't have X-ray vision, and can't determine what is
> > behind a wall. He has a reasonable expectation to believe that there
> > aren't wires too close to the surface.
> > If the contractor was using unnecessarily long nails - say 3" to
> > attach some trim - then there's some responsibility there, but it's
> > basically the owner's.
> > Say WHAT?
> I don't know what that is supposed to mean. =A0If you have a question,
> ask it.
> R
> Your statement that the owner would bear the responsibility for this act
> befuddles me. =A0The fact is that no matter what the location of the wire=
, the
> wire was in good shape before the contractor did whatever he did. =A0At t=
he
> least, he should have offered to open up a small area just to be safe. =
=A0He
> did not even do that, and gave the person, a layman, advice from an exper=
t
> professional that nothing was wrong, and it was safe, which may or may no=
t
> be the case. =A0In my opinion, that was not a professional thing to do, a=
nd a
> reasonable person would have cause to be concerned.
You are confusing two different issues.
1). The contractor saying, "Don't worry." is a cavalier attitude and
is scary. You'll get no argument from me that the guy behaved badly
after shorting the wire, it certainly is not professional behavior,
and a reasonable person should definitely be concerned in such an
event.
2). The wire being in an unusual location is a "latent and concealed
condition". The Owner did not know about it, the contractor did not
know about it. It is the Owner's house.
Look at it another way. This is how it _should_ have worked.
The contractor is legit, and the homeowner has a signed contract. The
contract has the standard latent and concealed condition clause. The
contractor hits the wire and it shorts out. The contractor stops work
and informs the Owner. The Owner calls in an electrician to open the
wall and fix the wire. You can't have a concealed electrical junction
box, and the wire won't magically grow a foot so you can cut it and
have the required wire length inside the box anyway, so rewiring is in
order (unless everybody is cutting corners). The contractor would
charge the Owner for the delay, unless he's in a good mood or has
other things to work on, and for patching the wall/ceiling the
electrician opened up. Then it's back to installing trim.
That is contracting and that is the textbook way it should work.
Obviously it doesn't always work that way on smaller jobs, with
unlicensed/hack contractors and without contracts. It does not change
the fact that the Owner is on the hook for something the contractor
would not reasonably expect to encounter. Since code requires wiring
to be a certain distance back from the face of the framing, any
typical nail used in attaching trim shouldn't have been long enough to
reach the wire if it were in the correct location.
> To the OP: =A0Call your local Contractor's Board and the Fire Department =
and
> see what they say. =A0Find out if this man is in fact a licensed contract=
or.
> I believe in your original question, you stated he was. =A0If he is, they=
will
> mediate, and bring on a fair solution. =A0If someone else has to fix this=
and
> open it up for inspection, it goes on him or his surety bond. =A0They may=
be
> interested in the hijinks of this fellow, who may or may not be licensed.
> I, like you, would be concerned until I had a final impartial 100% sure
> answer. =A0What you got was not the actions and behavior of a "profession=
al
> contractor." =A0And now you are living under stress from a potentially de=
adly
> situation.
> Steve, a retired contractor
I don't know if you should be fanning the flames of paranoia with an
already admitted spooked homeowner. They should be concerned, and
they should get it corrected sooner rather than later, but there's
little benefit in talking about deadly situations.
The OP mentioned getting a guy in to help with the trim. I am using
the word contractor, though he may not be anything more than an
unlicensed handyman, or a "skilled" neighbor. There are few
homeowners who are totally oblivious to licensing issues. The
decision to hire a guy without checking on their qualifications,
licensing and insurance is usually made based on the guy's price being
good, he's available, and, hell, what could go wrong with putting up a
little trim? There's not a lot of liability like he'd fall off the
roof, right? This situation should help clarify the error of such
thinking.
About the comment of using a stud finder as a foolproof method of
finding wires, and scanning everywhere before nailing. As Roger
mentioned, there's a top plate running along the wall, and there are
(toe)nails attaching the stud to the plate. Nobody except a
blithering idiot would run a wire in a location that would require
them to drill through the (toe)nails. More likely the wire was either
set into notches, or just draped or stapled up in the soffit.
R
|
|
Posted by John Grabowski on October 14, 2009, 3:10 pm
> > > Agree with John and Bob. I would also say the contractor is not
> > > responsible for this. As others have pointed out, wiring is supposed
> > > to be run far enough back that a finishing nail from molding can't
> > > reach it or else have a metal plate covering it.
> > Yep. Even if you had a contract, and the contract was any good,
> > there'd be a clause in there about "latent and concealed conditions".
> > The contractor doesn't have X-ray vision, and can't determine what is
> > behind a wall. He has a reasonable expectation to believe that there
> > aren't wires too close to the surface.
> > If the contractor was using unnecessarily long nails - say 3" to
> > attach some trim - then there's some responsibility there, but it's
> > basically the owner's.
> > Say WHAT?
> I don't know what that is supposed to mean. If you have a question,
> ask it.
> R
> Your statement that the owner would bear the responsibility for this act
> befuddles me. The fact is that no matter what the location of the wire,
> the
> wire was in good shape before the contractor did whatever he did. At the
> least, he should have offered to open up a small area just to be safe. He
> did not even do that, and gave the person, a layman, advice from an expert
> professional that nothing was wrong, and it was safe, which may or may not
> be the case. In my opinion, that was not a professional thing to do, and a
> reasonable person would have cause to be concerned.
You are confusing two different issues.
1). The contractor saying, "Don't worry." is a cavalier attitude and
is scary. You'll get no argument from me that the guy behaved badly
after shorting the wire, it certainly is not professional behavior,
and a reasonable person should definitely be concerned in such an
event.
2). The wire being in an unusual location is a "latent and concealed
condition". The Owner did not know about it, the contractor did not
know about it. It is the Owner's house.
Look at it another way. This is how it _should_ have worked.
The contractor is legit, and the homeowner has a signed contract. The
contract has the standard latent and concealed condition clause. The
contractor hits the wire and it shorts out. The contractor stops work
and informs the Owner. The Owner calls in an electrician to open the
wall and fix the wire. You can't have a concealed electrical junction
box, and the wire won't magically grow a foot so you can cut it and
have the required wire length inside the box anyway, so rewiring is in
order (unless everybody is cutting corners). The contractor would
charge the Owner for the delay, unless he's in a good mood or has
other things to work on, and for patching the wall/ceiling the
electrician opened up. Then it's back to installing trim.
That is contracting and that is the textbook way it should work.
Obviously it doesn't always work that way on smaller jobs, with
unlicensed/hack contractors and without contracts. It does not change
the fact that the Owner is on the hook for something the contractor
would not reasonably expect to encounter. Since code requires wiring
to be a certain distance back from the face of the framing, any
typical nail used in attaching trim shouldn't have been long enough to
reach the wire if it were in the correct location.
> To the OP: Call your local Contractor's Board and the Fire Department and
> see what they say. Find out if this man is in fact a licensed contractor.
> I believe in your original question, you stated he was. If he is, they
> will
> mediate, and bring on a fair solution. If someone else has to fix this and
> open it up for inspection, it goes on him or his surety bond. They may be
> interested in the hijinks of this fellow, who may or may not be licensed.
> I, like you, would be concerned until I had a final impartial 100% sure
> answer. What you got was not the actions and behavior of a "professional
> contractor." And now you are living under stress from a potentially deadly
> situation.
> Steve, a retired contractor
I don't know if you should be fanning the flames of paranoia with an
already admitted spooked homeowner. They should be concerned, and
they should get it corrected sooner rather than later, but there's
little benefit in talking about deadly situations.
The OP mentioned getting a guy in to help with the trim. I am using
the word contractor, though he may not be anything more than an
unlicensed handyman, or a "skilled" neighbor. There are few
homeowners who are totally oblivious to licensing issues. The
decision to hire a guy without checking on their qualifications,
licensing and insurance is usually made based on the guy's price being
good, he's available, and, hell, what could go wrong with putting up a
little trim? There's not a lot of liability like he'd fall off the
roof, right? This situation should help clarify the error of such
thinking.
About the comment of using a stud finder as a foolproof method of
finding wires, and scanning everywhere before nailing. As Roger
mentioned, there's a top plate running along the wall, and there are
(toe)nails attaching the stud to the plate. Nobody except a
blithering idiot would run a wire in a location that would require
them to drill through the (toe)nails.
"More likely the wire was either set into notches, or just draped or stapled
up in the soffit."
*I worked on a kitchen remodel back in march. It was a total gut job.
While adding one additional recessed light to existing ones that were
installed by a previous homeowner I found a romex cable running up from a
switch that was wedged between the drywall and the top plate with no notch
and no protection. I drilled a hole and ran it through the plate.
|
|
Posted by on October 14, 2009, 5:56 pm
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 08:11:22 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour
>> > > Agree with John and Bob. I would also say the contractor is not
>> > > responsible for this. As others have pointed out, wiring is supposed
>> > > to be run far enough back that a finishing nail from molding can't
>> > > reach it or else have a metal plate covering it.
>> > Yep. Even if you had a contract, and the contract was any good,
>> > there'd be a clause in there about "latent and concealed conditions".
>> > The contractor doesn't have X-ray vision, and can't determine what is
>> > behind a wall. He has a reasonable expectation to believe that there
>> > aren't wires too close to the surface.
>> > If the contractor was using unnecessarily long nails - say 3" to
>> > attach some trim - then there's some responsibility there, but it's
>> > basically the owner's.
>> > Say WHAT?
>> I don't know what that is supposed to mean. If you have a question,
>> ask it.
>> R
>> Your statement that the owner would bear the responsibility for this act
>> befuddles me. The fact is that no matter what the location of the wire, the
>> wire was in good shape before the contractor did whatever he did. At the
>> least, he should have offered to open up a small area just to be safe. He
>> did not even do that, and gave the person, a layman, advice from an expert
>> professional that nothing was wrong, and it was safe, which may or may not
>> be the case. In my opinion, that was not a professional thing to do, and a
>> reasonable person would have cause to be concerned.
>You are confusing two different issues.
>1). The contractor saying, "Don't worry." is a cavalier attitude and
>is scary. You'll get no argument from me that the guy behaved badly
>after shorting the wire, it certainly is not professional behavior,
>and a reasonable person should definitely be concerned in such an
>event.
>2). The wire being in an unusual location is a "latent and concealed
>condition". The Owner did not know about it, the contractor did not
>know about it. It is the Owner's house.
>Look at it another way. This is how it _should_ have worked.
>The contractor is legit, and the homeowner has a signed contract. The
>contract has the standard latent and concealed condition clause. The
>contractor hits the wire and it shorts out. The contractor stops work
>and informs the Owner. The Owner calls in an electrician to open the
>wall and fix the wire. You can't have a concealed electrical junction
>box, and the wire won't magically grow a foot so you can cut it and
>have the required wire length inside the box anyway, so rewiring is in
>order (unless everybody is cutting corners). The contractor would
>charge the Owner for the delay, unless he's in a good mood or has
>other things to work on, and for patching the wall/ceiling the
>electrician opened up. Then it's back to installing trim.
>That is contracting and that is the textbook way it should work.
>Obviously it doesn't always work that way on smaller jobs, with
>unlicensed/hack contractors and without contracts. It does not change
>the fact that the Owner is on the hook for something the contractor
>would not reasonably expect to encounter. Since code requires wiring
>to be a certain distance back from the face of the framing, any
>typical nail used in attaching trim shouldn't have been long enough to
>reach the wire if it were in the correct location.
>> To the OP: Call your local Contractor's Board and the Fire Department and
>> see what they say. Find out if this man is in fact a licensed contractor.
>> I believe in your original question, you stated he was. If he is, they will
>> mediate, and bring on a fair solution. If someone else has to fix this and
>> open it up for inspection, it goes on him or his surety bond. They may be
>> interested in the hijinks of this fellow, who may or may not be licensed.
>> I, like you, would be concerned until I had a final impartial 100% sure
>> answer. What you got was not the actions and behavior of a "professional
>> contractor." And now you are living under stress from a potentially deadly
>> situation.
>> Steve, a retired contractor
>I don't know if you should be fanning the flames of paranoia with an
>already admitted spooked homeowner. They should be concerned, and
>they should get it corrected sooner rather than later, but there's
>little benefit in talking about deadly situations.
>The OP mentioned getting a guy in to help with the trim. I am using
>the word contractor, though he may not be anything more than an
>unlicensed handyman, or a "skilled" neighbor. There are few
>homeowners who are totally oblivious to licensing issues. The
>decision to hire a guy without checking on their qualifications,
>licensing and insurance is usually made based on the guy's price being
>good, he's available, and, hell, what could go wrong with putting up a
>little trim? There's not a lot of liability like he'd fall off the
>roof, right? This situation should help clarify the error of such
>thinking.
>About the comment of using a stud finder as a foolproof method of
>finding wires, and scanning everywhere before nailing. As Roger
>mentioned, there's a top plate running along the wall, and there are
>(toe)nails attaching the stud to the plate. Nobody except a
>blithering idiot would run a wire in a location that would require
>them to drill through the (toe)nails. More likely the wire was either
>set into notches, or just draped or stapled up in the soffit.
>R
And the "contractor" would still have known there was a possibility of
hitting wire if he had used his scanner first. The wire may not have
been running along the plate at all - it may (and most likely was)
have been coming THROUGH the plate to go down to a switch or
receptacle in the wall - and the nail ANYWHERE but where he put ir
would have been a total non issue.
Knowing there was a live wire in the immediate area, the nail would
have been moved 3 or 4 inches one way or the other and no problem..
When working in older homes in particular, you ASSUME there is a wire
there untill you prove to your satisfaction there is none. With
today's low-cost technology readily available there is NO EXCUSE for
a contractor or a handyman to EVER put a nail , a drill, or a saw into
a live wire.
|
|
Posted by RicodJour on October 14, 2009, 7:00 pm
On Oct 14, 5:56=A0pm, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
> >About the comment of using a stud finder as a foolproof method of
> >finding wires, and scanning everywhere before nailing. =A0As Roger
> >mentioned, there's a top plate running along the wall, and there are
> >(toe)nails attaching the stud to the plate. =A0Nobody except a
> >blithering idiot would run a wire in a location that would require
> >them to drill through the (toe)nails. =A0More likely the wire was either
> >set into notches, or just draped or stapled up in the soffit.
> And the "contractor" would still have known there was a possibility of
> hitting wire if he had used his scanner first. The wire may not have
> been running along the plate at all - it may (and most likely was)
> have been coming THROUGH the plate to go down to a switch or
> receptacle in the wall - and the nail ANYWHERE but where he put ir
> would have been a total non issue.
You're putting another layer of drywall or paneling over an existing
wall. Do you scan the entire room to locate the wires? Do you scan
every stud and joist along its entire length? How long does that
take? What about if there were a pipe in the wall? A wire that
wasn't live until a switch was flicked on?
Contract law is full of cases that were determined based on
"reasonable expectations". Code is full of requirements that dictate
where and how wires should be run. In the vast majority of cases its
not an issue as nothing ever happens - even if the wires are run
incorrectly. You're backtracking and cherry-picking this one example
and using it to make a blanket statement that would suck down a lot of
time with very little benefit. If 100 carpenters didn't scan the
walls, probably one or two would hit a live wire, none if it were run
correctly. So to prevent the one occurrence you want all 100
carpenters to scan all the walls all of the time. Please. Why not
just recommend using construction adhesive to attach the trim? That's
even safer!
> Knowing there was a live wire in the immediate area, the nail would
> have been moved 3 or 4 inches one way or the other and no problem..
Hey, any hints on who won last week's big game?
The fact of the matter is that someone ran a wire where it shouldn't
have been, or the guy installing the trim used too long of a nail.
> When working in older homes in particular, you ASSUME there is a wire
> there untill you prove to your satisfaction there is none. With
> today's low-cost technology =A0readily available there is NO EXCUSE for
> a contractor or a handyman to EVER put a nail , a drill, or a saw into
> a live wire.
I've been swatting nails for 35 years. I've never hit a live wire. I
also have never used a scanner to scan all the surfaces. If I did,
guess who'd be paying for my time? Every job I did I'd have to charge
for that 'extra' service, and it would only pay off in extremely rare
cases. I'd still get paid.
This all goes to risk management. Do you want to pay up front to me,
whether or not there is a problem, or, _if_ there is a problem pay to
fix it? A case could also be made that hitting the wire is doing the
owner a favor by locating a shoddy wiring job.
R
|
|
Posted by on October 14, 2009, 10:29 pm
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 16:00:59 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour
>On Oct 14, 5:56 pm, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
>> >About the comment of using a stud finder as a foolproof method of
>> >finding wires, and scanning everywhere before nailing. As Roger
>> >mentioned, there's a top plate running along the wall, and there are
>> >(toe)nails attaching the stud to the plate. Nobody except a
>> >blithering idiot would run a wire in a location that would require
>> >them to drill through the (toe)nails. More likely the wire was either
>> >set into notches, or just draped or stapled up in the soffit.
>> And the "contractor" would still have known there was a possibility of
>> hitting wire if he had used his scanner first. The wire may not have
>> been running along the plate at all - it may (and most likely was)
>> have been coming THROUGH the plate to go down to a switch or
>> receptacle in the wall - and the nail ANYWHERE but where he put ir
>> would have been a total non issue.
>You're putting another layer of drywall or paneling over an existing
>wall. Do you scan the entire room to locate the wires? Do you scan
>every stud and joist along its entire length? How long does that
>take? What about if there were a pipe in the wall? A wire that
>wasn't live until a switch was flicked on?
>Contract law is full of cases that were determined based on
>"reasonable expectations". Code is full of requirements that dictate
>where and how wires should be run. In the vast majority of cases its
>not an issue as nothing ever happens - even if the wires are run
>incorrectly. You're backtracking and cherry-picking this one example
>and using it to make a blanket statement that would suck down a lot of
>time with very little benefit. If 100 carpenters didn't scan the
>walls, probably one or two would hit a live wire, none if it were run
>correctly. So to prevent the one occurrence you want all 100
>carpenters to scan all the walls all of the time. Please. Why not
>just recommend using construction adhesive to attach the trim? That's
>even safer!
>> Knowing there was a live wire in the immediate area, the nail would
>> have been moved 3 or 4 inches one way or the other and no problem..
>Hey, any hints on who won last week's big game?
>The fact of the matter is that someone ran a wire where it shouldn't
>have been, or the guy installing the trim used too long of a nail.
>> When working in older homes in particular, you ASSUME there is a wire
>> there untill you prove to your satisfaction there is none. With
>> today's low-cost technology readily available there is NO EXCUSE for
>> a contractor or a handyman to EVER put a nail , a drill, or a saw into
>> a live wire.
>I've been swatting nails for 35 years. I've never hit a live wire. I
>also have never used a scanner to scan all the surfaces. If I did,
>guess who'd be paying for my time? Every job I did I'd have to charge
>for that 'extra' service, and it would only pay off in extremely rare
>cases. I'd still get paid.
>This all goes to risk management. Do you want to pay up front to me,
>whether or not there is a problem, or, _if_ there is a problem pay to
>fix it? A case could also be made that hitting the wire is doing the
>owner a favor by locating a shoddy wiring job.
>R
I look at the room and the layout of the electrics and say "where did
they connect that?" and I know whether the wire went up or down (or
both) from a switch or receptacle, and if wires run across between
receptacles through the sruds, and at what height. I also mark where
the studs are - putting in drywall screws where there is no stud does
no good at all. When hanging items I also try to locate hanger nails
in studs whenever possible - and with the studfinder I also know if
there is a metal pipe (or other metal article) in the wall, as well as
the wiriing and the location of the studs.
I then stay away from the location of wires and pipes when driving
screws or nails, and use extreme caution when opening a hole in a wall
where either exists.
Not very productive to cut a hole in a wall to install a box for a
light switch, only to find a forced air duct taking up all the space
either.
Helps to know where the "fire stops" are too, when trying to pull new
wiring into a wall. - and if other wires share the space before
attempting to drill through the "fire stop" to pull in a new wire. The
stud finder lets me know where they are and if they exist. Gives me an
idea how long the job might end up taking.
By "fire stop" I mean the 2X4 nailed in across between 2 studs,
usually between where you can access to feed a wire (whether attic or
basement) and the location of the switch/outlet/box you are trying to
connect to.
So it takes half an hour longer to do the job (or even to quote it if
you are a contractor) - you KNOW what you are up against before it
happens - and believe me - THAT is good.
My Dad was a professional electrician - I worked with him many times
on both new construction and renos - and KNOW that wires are not
always in the center of the stud, and when they aren't they are not
always protected by a "scab plate". If you did the original wiring,
you have control over that. If you didn't, you don't..
I also know that not all electricians are as neat or logical in their
layout as others. My dad was a pro - many are not. If I need to work
in my house or a friend's house I don't just assume everything is as
it should be, or that I'm going to be "lucky"
Now, when you have to break out concrete to do drain work in a
basement, and you don't KNOW where the existing pipes run, That can be
a challenge. Last project I had my plumber look at it and give me his
"best guess" - then we laid out what we figured was a "safe" cut - cut
it with a diamond saw, and carefully broke it out with the Kango,
making sure not to let the chisel get in too deep. Good thing, because
the ABS pipe was NOT where we thought it was. and we could easily have
broken the pipe.
|
Page 4 of 10 < 1 2 3 > last >>
| Similar Threads | Posted | | kitchen crown moulding problem - long | June 30, 2005, 1:35 pm |
| Installing Crown Moulding on Kitchen Cabinets... condition them first? | February 10, 2005, 2:09 pm |
| Installing Crown Moulding on Kitchen Cabinets... condition them first? | February 10, 2005, 6:29 pm |
| kitchen contractor ordered the wrong cabinets, now what? | February 18, 2006, 10:04 pm |
| Kitchen range Hood/Vent in attic - How to Wire? | February 20, 2006, 12:36 am |
| frayed electrical wire behind kitchen stove/microwave | August 9, 2006, 8:56 pm |
| Ground wire for dual fuel kitchen stove | October 26, 2006, 1:40 am |
| Bathroom: architect versus contractor? which contractor? | March 4, 2007, 9:09 am |
| Subfloor Nailing | February 23, 2006, 12:52 am |
| U brackets, nailing | May 28, 2009, 8:51 pm |
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap
> > > responsible for this. As others have pointed out, wiring is supposed
> > > to be run far enough back that a finishing nail from molding can't
> > > reach it or else have a metal plate covering it.