4 ms·

We just need to make builders more liable for issues caused by their own building. Building codes are just a way to say, you won't get in trouble for bad thing

We just need to make builders more liable for issues caused by their own building. Building codes are just a way to say, you won't get in trouble for bad things that happen, in return you have to follow these rules every time you build a house. Instead if we just say, if you build a house that kills someone, you are now a murderer, then yeah I think the markets can figure out how to not get people killed. But that's not going to happen for lots of reasons.

quickthrowman 3y ago
The builder doesn’t design a building, they’re given a set of engineered plans and told to build it. If it meets code and passes inspection, why are design problems the builder’s fault? That’s a rhetorical question, by the way.
- from-nibly 3y ago
  I guess I should clarify often in the US the "builder" and "designer" are the same entity. By "builder" I mean the people responsible for designing unsafe designs, and the people responsible for poorly executing good designs. Find root cause, and make that entity liable
jlhawn 3y ago
There are construction defect laws in California which, infamously, only apply to multi-family buildings and exempt single-family homes. There's a 10-year window after certification of occupancy where the builder is liable for any construction defects, not just those that may lead to death of occupants. In practice it's mostly cosmetic/finishing issues that people complain and file lawsuits about. Leveling the playing field here would be nice.
michaelt 3y ago
Unfortunately this is unlikely to work, so long as limited liability companies exist. After all, it's a simple enough matter to start a new company, trade for 3-5 years, pay yourself some big dividends then declare bankruptcy and start a new company with a very similar name and set of employees. Furthermore, the construction of larger buildings often allows for a merry-go-round of blame shifting. The architect specifies fireproof material 'or equivalent', the main contractor outsources parts of the design to specialist suppliers, the specialist suppliers trust marketing materials, the material manufacturers had small print saying people should run their own tests, the specialist fire consultant didn't raise the alarm about a change but he stopped getting paid a third of the way through the project, the contractors thought the building inspectors were checking for safety, the building inspectors thought they were a secondary safety net and responsibility lay with the designers... and so on.

quickthrowman 3y ago

The builder doesn’t design a building, they’re given a set of engineered plans and told to build it. If it meets code and passes inspection, why are design problems the builder’s fault? That’s a rhetorical question, by the way.

from-nibly 3y ago
I guess I should clarify often in the US the "builder" and "designer" are the same entity. By "builder" I mean the people responsible for designing unsafe designs, and the people responsible for poorly executing good designs. Find root cause, and make that entity liable

jlhawn 3y ago

There are construction defect laws in California which, infamously, only apply to multi-family buildings and exempt single-family homes. There's a 10-year window after certification of occupancy where the builder is liable for any construction defects, not just those that may lead to death of occupants. In practice it's mostly cosmetic/finishing issues that people complain and file lawsuits about. Leveling the playing field here would be nice.

michaelt 3y ago

Unfortunately this is unlikely to work, so long as limited liability companies exist. After all, it's a simple enough matter to start a new company, trade for 3-5 years, pay yourself some big dividends then declare bankruptcy and start a new company with a very similar name and set of employees. Furthermore, the construction of larger buildings often allows for a merry-go-round of blame shifting. The architect specifies fireproof material 'or equivalent', the main contractor outsources parts of the design to specialist suppliers, the specialist suppliers trust marketing materials, the material manufacturers had small print saying people should run their own tests, the specialist fire consultant didn't raise the alarm about a change but he stopped getting paid a third of the way through the project, the contractors thought the building inspectors were checking for safety, the building inspectors thought they were a secondary safety net and responsibility lay with the designers... and so on.