Just curious who is/is not running with the new code.

Hi Rob..we started july 1, although nothing has been permitted yet, we had a lot of applications dated prior to july 1

We are permitting plans and installations to be designed per the 2008 NEC, but will not enforce compliance with the 2008 until we get official word from the DCA.

Here's a question I have on the issue of code adoption.

The NEC was published over a year ago. At that time, the public was made aware of the new requirements considered to be the minimum safety provisions.

So take TR receptacles for example. Just becuase the particular state or jurisdiction hasn't adopted that code yet, that really doesn't mean the need is not there.

So here's the question. Isn't there at least a little bit of liability on the backs of the contractors that are not complying with the newest codes even before they are officially adopted?

Couldn't a lawyer argue that a contractor knows of the new requirements nd should react to those new requirements even before they made to?

What are your thoughts?

There was an interesting question over on ECN.
How do you test a TR receptacle if you can't get your meter probe in the hole?

I believe the contractor can be sued if he did not install to the code in force at the time, even if the building official arbitrarily decided to "let some things go."

Before you consider negligence you can consider negligence per se. Negligence per se is the legal doctrine whereby an act is considered negligent because it violates a statute (or regulation). In order to prove negligence per se, the plaintiff must show that (1) the defendant violated the statute, (2) the statute is a safety statute, (3) the act caused the kind of harm the statute was designed to prevent, and (4) the plaintiff was within the zone of risk. In some jurisdictions, negligence per se creates merely a presumption of negligence.*

As a typical example, suppose a contractor violated a building code when constructing a house. The house then collapses and somebody is injured. The violation of the building code establishes negligence per se and the contractor will be found negligent, so long as the contractor's breach of the code was the cause (proximate cause and actual cause) of the injury.*

Negligence per se can create the basis for the legal action to ensue.


*Wikipedia

Here's how I picture the proceedings:

Lawyer: "Mr. Contractor, why didn't you install TR receptacles?"

Contractor: "I wasn't required to becuase I pulled my permit 2 days before the official adoption of the 2008 NEC."

Lawyer: "But, you were aware that TR receptacles became mandatory in the 2008 NEC which was published well over a year ago?"

Contractor: "Well, yes, but..."

Lawyer: "...but you chose not to intall the TR receptacles simply because the state delayed the official adoption of the 2008 NEC mostly due to red tape and slow government action, right?"

Contractor: "Well, yes, but..."

Lawyer: "..but now there is a child in the hospital with third degree burns on 2/3 of their left arm because they stuck a fork in a receptacle installed by you that was not TR because you weren't required to install that TR receptacle because you conveniently pulled the permit 2 days before the adoption of a code which has been published for over a year."

Contractor: "Opps...My bad..."

Lawyer: "Show me the money.....!!!!!"

You have just described the "lawyer tax" we all pay. That will come out of the EC's E&O insurance and we all pay for that.

Us hillbillies up in North Carolina adopted the 2008 NEC June 1, 2008.

Now if you could just get it enforced.

UF crossing a hiking trail at Mt Pisgah