If waterproofing concrete was not executed on a 4 story concrete structure, who would you think would be held liable for leakage? I know, a legal question, but thought some may have experienced this down the road.
wow, metamechanic you had a case where "those that enforce the code" were held libel? where?
what kind of project and contract? did you have a div 7 waterproofing (or repellant) section? did you indicate anything on the dwgs? it should be a pretty simple case of who's at fault -at least until the depositions begin.
the geotech report makes recommendations not requirements.
there are several waterproofing strategies and products (fluid applied, bentonite, and the like) the architect would need to pick, detail and spec a product. todd either did or didn't do this.
j, the architect doesn't "approve" shop drawings, he/she reviews the shop drawings for conformance w/ the design intent (or something like that -check the stamp). this distinction is improtant when the lawyers enter the picture.
thanks for all the responses, and to clarify, I have no involvement in the question at hand. I am only trying to learn from others that may have experienced this instance. The project at hand is a commercial level of a developer. From what I know, their have been depositions taken and will continue next week, I think. I have to figure out whether or not waterproofing was required in this particular city/county.
j is right. the geotech would of course be a recommendation, but that is a distinction without a difference. because not following a "recommended" safeguard for protecting against groundwater penetration, is obviously foolish. if it was recommended that the foundation be damproofed and not waterproofed - when in actuality the foundation needed to be waterproofed to prevent the ground water penetration, then i would think the engineers bear some liability as well. if like j said the contractor - in trying to save a few bucks - did not place any water protection, then he, would probably be liable.
i know in my office we do whatever the geotech report states/recommends/or requires us...
the distinction with difference is that the geotechnical report is not part of the contract documents.
the architect has a weak position if he's hanging his case on a "per requirements of the geotech report" statement and the boiler plate language that the "g.c. shall build per code."
also, it's been my experience that no matter how big the soils mess nothing gets hung on the geotech. engineer.
Apr 22, 06 11:05 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
Waterproofing Concrete, who's liable.....
If waterproofing concrete was not executed on a 4 story concrete structure, who would you think would be held liable for leakage? I know, a legal question, but thought some may have experienced this down the road.
good feedback metamechanic...
I will be looking into this matter at the start of next week. thnx for the input....
wow, metamechanic you had a case where "those that enforce the code" were held libel? where?
what kind of project and contract? did you have a div 7 waterproofing (or repellant) section? did you indicate anything on the dwgs? it should be a pretty simple case of who's at fault -at least until the depositions begin.
yeah, but doesn't this all come down to the geo-technical report and what exactly was required?
the geotech report makes recommendations not requirements.
there are several waterproofing strategies and products (fluid applied, bentonite, and the like) the architect would need to pick, detail and spec a product. todd either did or didn't do this.
j, the architect doesn't "approve" shop drawings, he/she reviews the shop drawings for conformance w/ the design intent (or something like that -check the stamp). this distinction is improtant when the lawyers enter the picture.
thanks for all the responses, and to clarify, I have no involvement in the question at hand. I am only trying to learn from others that may have experienced this instance. The project at hand is a commercial level of a developer. From what I know, their have been depositions taken and will continue next week, I think. I have to figure out whether or not waterproofing was required in this particular city/county.
j is right. the geotech would of course be a recommendation, but that is a distinction without a difference. because not following a "recommended" safeguard for protecting against groundwater penetration, is obviously foolish. if it was recommended that the foundation be damproofed and not waterproofed - when in actuality the foundation needed to be waterproofed to prevent the ground water penetration, then i would think the engineers bear some liability as well. if like j said the contractor - in trying to save a few bucks - did not place any water protection, then he, would probably be liable.
i know in my office we do whatever the geotech report states/recommends/or requires us...
the distinction with difference is that the geotechnical report is not part of the contract documents.
the architect has a weak position if he's hanging his case on a "per requirements of the geotech report" statement and the boiler plate language that the "g.c. shall build per code."
also, it's been my experience that no matter how big the soils mess nothing gets hung on the geotech. engineer.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.