commercial code inspection

Originally Posted By: swalch
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Hi Joe,


I got a call from an attorney wanting me to do an inspection for a code violation at a restaraunt in rural Utah. It was a trip hazard on the sidewalk, where an elderly lady fell and has a lot of medical bills over 100K, I told him I was a residential home inspector and not a code or commercial inspector. I told him I could travel the 10 hr. round trip and take pictures of the sidewalk and document what I see. And try to research the code violations for the sidewalk. Would this be ok to perform this inspection, with an agreement saying that i’m not a code inspector or what action should I take?


Thank You for your advice


Sid Walch


All Point Inspection.


Originally Posted By: mboyett
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



I’d run from that one as fast as I could, huge potential for liability. Are you prepared to go testify in court to your qualifications and findings? You better be.


Originally Posted By: jhagarty
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



swalch wrote:


I told him I could travel the 10 hr. round trip and take pictures of the sidewalk and document what I see. ...


Curious. What price did you quote for this Inspection?


Originally Posted By: swalch
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



I figured it would take about 10 hrs of travel, $100 of gas, a 1 hour inspection, and about 1 hour to write the report. I figured $50 an hour plus $200 for gas and vehicle for a total of $800. Do you think this is in line?


Is there a lot of liability if you have a signed agreement telling what your credentials are and what you are not?


Thanks for your input


Originally Posted By: bkelly2
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



mboyett wrote:
I'd run from that one as fast as I could, huge potential for liability. Are you prepared to go testify in court to your qualifications and findings? You better be.


Could not have said it better


Originally Posted By: rcloyd
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



I agree with Michael, refer him to a certified code inspector if you know of one and decline.


Regards,


Originally Posted By: dspencer
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



$50 hr…Lawyer is $150+hr


Originally Posted By: jferry
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



swalch wrote:
Hi Joe,
I got a call from an attorney wanting me to do an inspection for a code violation at a restaraunt in rural Utah. It was a trip hazard on the sidewalk, where an elderly lady fell and has a lot of medical bills over 100K, I told him I was a residential home inspector and not a code or commercial inspector. I told him I could travel the 10 hr. round trip and take pictures of the sidewalk and document what I see. And try to research the code violations for the sidewalk. Would this be ok to perform this inspection, with an agreement saying that i'm not a code inspector or what action should I take?
Thank You for your advice
Sid Walch
All Point Inspection.


You would be amazed at how seriously injured you can become from a fall on a sidewalk, particularly if you are elderly.

Apparently, this lawyer believes that you are an expert, even though you protest that you are not. All this lawyer wants to do is document the permanent nature of this defect, as opposed to a transitory defect, say a couple of grapes in the produce aisle of a supermarket.

The key issue in slip and fall cases is notice. A grape in the produce aisle the owner might not have notice of but an out of level sidewalk or a cracked pavement or some other permanent defect is a different story.

If this woman has 100K of medical bills and there is an actual defect in the sidewalk, it is exceedingly unlikely that you will be called upon to testify. Even if you are, so what. You testify to what you see. You do not need to be an expert to testify that the sidewalk has a tripping hazard. Common sense will do.

By all means. take the assignment, do a good job of documenting the tripping hazard and charge a lot of money, repeat charge a lot of money.

Worst case, he never hires you again. Best case, you're now his sidewald expert.

Break a leg. And don't forget to charge a lot of money.

Joe


Originally Posted By: mboyett
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



jferry wrote:
By all means. take the assignment, do a good job of documenting the tripping hazard and charge a lot of money, repeat charge a lot of money.
Joe, you can't tell me that if you were representing the defendant in this case that you wouldn't try to discredit the HI witness. Wouldn't you question his education, his specific hazard training, his credentials, etc? I know you would. If you could show the judge or jury that the inspector was not qualified to be doing that type of inspection you would. If the intent of the plaintiff's attorney is to simply have a reasonable person's opinion then that's another story but do you think that is all he is looking for? I would think the plaintiff's attorney would want an ICC certified/ADA compliance/or similar type of savvy inspector.


Originally Posted By: jferry
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



mboyett wrote:
jferry wrote:
By all means. take the assignment, do a good job of documenting the tripping hazard and charge a lot of money, repeat charge a lot of money.
Joe, you can't tell me that if you were representing the defendant in this case that you wouldn't try to discredit the HI witness. Wouldn't you question his education, his specific hazard training, his credentials, etc? I know you would. If you could show the judge or jury that the inspector was not qualified to be doing that type of inspection you would. If the intent of the plaintiff's attorney is to simply have a reasonable person's opinion then that's another story but do you think that is all he is looking for? I would think the plaintiff's attorney would want an ICC certified/ADA compliance/or similar type of savvy inspector.


If the sidewalk has a tripping hazard, the only way that this case is going to get any where near a court room is if one or the other attorney is deranged.

The claimant has $100K in medical bills. This is a huge case. Cross-examining anyone on his qualifications to opine on the status of a sidewalk that is clearly hazardous is a losing proposition for the cross-examiner.

You do not need an expert to demonstrate this. All you need is a photograph. Believe me. I've tried numerous slip and fall cases. It's not rocket science. The only issue is notice to the landowner of the defect. If it's a permanent defect, notice is a given and the case is closed on liability. The only remaining issue is how much are the damages.


Originally Posted By: mboyett
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Quote:
You do not need an expert to demonstrate this. All you need is a photograph
Then why doesn't the attorney just snap a photo himself?

Quote:
I've tried numerous slip and fall cases
Quote:
the only way that this case is going to get any where near a court room is if one or the other attorney is deranged

OK, I'll bite, was it you or him? ![icon_smile.gif](upload://b6iczyK1ETUUqRUc4PAkX83GF2O.gif)

Joe, you're the expert here and have many orders of magnitude more experience and knowledge on this subject than me and most other HI's here. I, of course, defer to your judgement. Still, I wouldn't do it.


Originally Posted By: jnosworthy
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.





Who is to say an Inspector is not qualified to make this visual verification, and possibly swear to what condition he saw. If it lands in court you’ll state your qualifications, whatever they are, any you’ll either be accepted as an expert on the subject or not.


In this case the opposition is not likely to have an experienced inspector of their own try to persuade anybody no hazard actually exists. I think you would go unopposed. That’s why you have to be careful to look these litigation situations over carefully before signing on. You don’t have to accept the job once you get there if something has been mis-represented to you.


One of my favorites is helping ripped off home owners who just had a new roof put on. Licensed local reputable roofing contractor has an unlicensed subcontractor do the install, with zero quality control or oversight. Oooopps! somehow they “did not install the shingles in accordance with the written instructions printed on each and every bundle of shingles on the jobsite”. Therefore the manufacturer’s 30,40,50 year warranty is null and void. The owners want it made right or they don’t want to pay for it. Unfortunately it does happen. Got to stand up for the little guy every now and then.


When your report with photo’s is ready, call and advise that you’ll be stopping by to pick up your check for 950. or 1,950., you decide, and deliver the report at the same time. If they ask how much you charge if it goes to court, tell them $400 to $500/ per half day session. Chances are good it will settle at least the day before the second or third post-ponement, if it ever get’s that far.


just my two cents


john


Originally Posted By: jferry
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



mboyett wrote:
Quote:
You do not need an expert to demonstrate this. All you need is a photograph
Then why doesn't the attorney just snap a photo himself?


Because the attorney can not testify in court. The HI/photographer will identify the photograph as being the one that he took, state the date that he took it, and state that it fairly represents the condition of the sidewalk on the date that he took the photograph. Cross-examine. No questions, your honor. Plaintiff moves the photograph into evidence.

mboyett wrote:
Quote:
I've tried numerous slip and fall cases
Quote:
the only way that this case is going to get any where near a court room is if one or the other attorney is deranged

OK, I'll bite, was it you or him? ![icon_smile.gif](upload://b6iczyK1ETUUqRUc4PAkX83GF2O.gif)


Most of the time it is him; sometimes, her.

Quote:
Joe, you're the expert here and have many orders of magnitude more experience and knowledge on this subject than me and most other HI's here. I, of course, defer to your judgement. Still, I wouldn't do it.


It's easy money and if you get connected you could find yourself with a lucrative side business.

Russell Ray is probably concocting a marketing plan to lawyers even as I write this.


Originally Posted By: jfarsetta
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



I would stick to documenting the condition, noting your opinion, and stay away of quoting any specific Codes. A tripping hazard is a tripping hazard.


Keep building codes out of it, unless you are the Authority Having Jurisdiction for the township.

Photograph... Document... Give a common sense opinion as to the condition.


Originally Posted By: mboyett
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Quote:
If the intent of the plaintiff's attorney is to simply have a reasonable person's opinion then that's another story
and if all I was doing was being the HI/photographer and not testifying in any 'expert' or 'official' capacity then sure, go for it and charge out the kazoo.


Originally Posted By: dedwards
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Agree with taking on the job. Simply put, a photo with perhaps a tape measure stretched out to document how much out the sidewalk is a cake walk. Make sure the photos are nice, sharp clear pictures. Take numerous shots from different angles and lets not forget…charge lots of money! Figure at least $100 an hour and that includes transit time. Your time is worth a lot and the fact that they called you is important. Dont’ short change yourself. If all of us started charging what we were worth there wouldn’t be this impression that HI is just a “handyman” profession.


Originally Posted By: escanlan
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Joe,


Have two questions regarding this type of situation that may help in future decisions to take this type of assignment.

1. If we perform an assignment such as this for a fee are we required to answer any summons, etc. to testify for the plaintiff without benefit of pay for the time lost for our efforts? Can we charge the plaintiff (our former client we performed the report for) for our additional court time?

2. What possible pitfalls would we be exposed to in the future if we did perform the assignment and did testify? By that I am asking if there is a possibility that we would be dragged into a related lawsuit against us for our testimony, either be the angry plaintiff who loses or the defendant who loses.

Having tried many cases, and read many legal briefs/periodicals/etc., what have been your experiences in these areas?


--
Manny (Emmanuel) Scanlan

Knowledge is power, but sharing knowledge brings peace!

Originally Posted By: jferry
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



escanlan wrote:
Joe,

Have two questions regarding this type of situation that may help in future decisions to take this type of assignment.

1. If we perform an assignment such as this for a fee are we required to answer any summons, etc. to testify for the plaintiff without benefit of pay for the time lost for our efforts? Can we charge the plaintiff (our former client we performed the report for) for our additional court time?


If you take the assignment, of course you are subject to being called by the plaintiff's attorney to testify and he should pay you for your time. He would be certifiable if he did not.

escanlan wrote:
2. What possible pitfalls would we be exposed to in the future if we did perform the assignment and did testify? By that I am asking if there is a possibility that we would be dragged into a related lawsuit against us for our testimony, either be the angry plaintiff who loses or the defendant who loses.


On what grounds, that your truthful testimony cost them the case? Stop being paranoid, people.

escanlan wrote:
Having tried many cases, and read many legal briefs/periodicals/etc., what have been your experiences in these areas?


Years ago, I was a witness to a head-on automobile accident. I stopped and rendered assistance and called the police. I could tell from the way that one of the drivers was acting that she was going to bring a suit against the other driver who, in my judgment, was not at fault.

I gave the other driver my card and got his contact information. When I got home I dictated the details of the accident when they were fresh in my memory. The following Monday, I wrote a letter to this driver outlining what I had seen.

Sure enough, the guy got sued. A short time later, I was subpoenaed by the plaintiff's attorney for a deposition. I was dumbfounded. "Didn't you see my letter?", I asked him. "It kills you!" He was undeterred.

So I gave the deposition testimony - and got paid by the defendant's insurance company my then hourly rate - and killed the guy again. I figured that was the end of it.

A year or so later, I get subpoenaed by the defense for trial. I told them to send me a check for my hourly rate times 3, figuring I'd be there about that long what with travel and court recesses.

The case settled on the eve of trial. So, for being a good citizen, I got about six hours of pay for no heavy lifting.

And ... after I had sent the original letter, the driver sent me a huge fruit basket.

So, get the heck out there and get your business cards into the hands of as many lawyers as you can.

Joe


Originally Posted By: escanlan
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Quote:
Sure enough, the guy got sued. A short time later, I was subpoenaed by the plaintiff's attorney for a deposition. I was dumbfounded. "Didn't you see my letter?", I asked him. "It kills you!" He was undeterred.


Quote:
On what grounds, that your truthful testimony cost them the case? Stop being paranoid, people.


It is not out of paranoia I ask. As per your own words you can see the ignorance of some people (see first quote above). Regardless of whether they are right or wrong the Inspector would have to spend time and money to defend themselves. Granted the Inspector would more than likely win but still loses even if they counter sue for the aggravation and costs.

Also in states such as Texas, the losing party gets to pay expenses by an automatic judgement. However, the Inspector may have to go back to court just to collect on the judgement.

So as we can see the only real winners are the lawyers!


--
Manny (Emmanuel) Scanlan

Knowledge is power, but sharing knowledge brings peace!

Originally Posted By: jjacobs
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



This is a very interesting and helpful thread; thanks everyone.


![icon_biggrin.gif](upload://iKNGSw3qcRIEmXySa8gItY6Gczg.gif)