Originally Posted By: KipHamilton
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Hi guys, please excuse this question from a newby, but I’d be interested in a dialogue from some of the “old-timers”.
In reading over many of the subjects on the message boards trying to get a "feel" for the business, I have noticed many discussions on specific functions that go well beyond NACHI's published Standards of Practice, for instance a recent thread on looking for gas leaks.
In general, is anyone concerned about a liability issue here?
I mean, it states in the SoP that the inspector is not required to use leak detection equipment. So, if one of us inspected a property where there may be an active leak of some kind and did not discover or report on it, then it seems like there is little legal problem because the customer agreed that the inspection would be done to the NACHI standards which did not require leak detection equipment, and it would be understandable that such a leak might not be discovered in the course of a visual inspection.
BUT, what if a NACHI inspector whips out his/her gas detector and does a search for leaks and misses one? I think the argument could be made that by using the detector, the inspector was going beyond the scope of the SoP and could/might/whatever be negligent in missing the leak (whereas, if the detector had not come out of the truck in the first place, everything would be ok)
I know the language says "is not required", so let's not have a discussion on semantics, here...I'm more interested in the more "cosmic" question of liability.
And not on this single issue, there seems to be many items "excluded" from the SoP, by virtue of their not being "required", but intuitively, it seems like if performed (like a leak test, or a search for cracked burners, or a microwave test, or (fill in the blank)) the end result would be a much more comprehensive inspection/report.
So what do you guys think?
Thanks! Kip
