4 ms·
It’s a liability issue. The approval is granted to the architect or engineer who stamps/signs the building plans. The plan itself demonstrates that the structur
by baubino 10mo ago
It’s a liability issue. The approval is granted to the architect or engineer who stamps/signs the building plans. The plan itself demonstrates that the structure meets all legal and safety requirements. If something goes wrong, whoever signed that plan is personally liable.
- silexia 10mo agoThe liability can simply be on the builder if they choose to use a separately approved plan. The builder has liability anyways.
- baubino 10mo agoIn most places (in the US at least), all building plans over a certain size require a stamp from an architect or engineer. Builders get their plans stamped by an architect or engineer too. No builder will willingly take on liability that they currently don’t have, especially since it will cost them more money (in insurance premiums). The exception is smaller buildings (usually less than 2000 sq ft) and in some places, all single family is exempt from needing a stamp. edit: I should add that I’m not against the idea of reusable plans. But the liability issue would need to be solved somehow. Who is going to be responsible if something goes wrong?
- yorwba 10mo agoI don't see why the person who assumes liability for the plans for one building couldn't also assume liability for n exact copies built using the same plans. Of course that goes against OP's wish of not having to pay for the plans, but if you're willing to pay, liability is not an issue.
- baubino 10mo agoI imagine that would raise the price of the plans significantly because, again, no one wants to take on more liability than they already have, and definitely won’t do so without additional compensation. At the very least, liability insurance would increase (if it even allows it).