Originally Posted By: Larry L Leesch This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
If you are subject to IRC, as memeory serves me correctly, IRC calls for a minimum tread width of 6" on curved stairs. Not sure about the handle rail not being continous. I certainly would write it up as not acceptable and as a fall hazard.
Originally Posted By: rcloyd This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Jeff:
Those look like Winders. Winders are permitted (by IRC), provided that the width of the tread at a point not more then 12 inches from the side where the treads are narrower is not less than 10 inches and the minimum width of any tread is not less than 6 inches. The continuous handrail required by code should be located on the side where the tread is narrower.
I would definitely write up the handrail and would write up the stairs as a safety hazard in need or repair if they do not comply with the above.
Originally Posted By: jpope This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
I believe even “winders” are required to be at least 36" wide, no?
Obviously they weren't going to tear these out, but I did write them up as being "too narrow to conform to today's standards," the handrail as being "improper and located on the wrong side of the staircase," with a recommendation to "upgrade as a safety enhancement."
-- Jeff Pope
JPI Home Inspection Service
"At JPI, we'll help you look better"
(661) 212-0738
Originally Posted By: jpeck This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Those are winders, and yes, 36" wide, 6" deep at the narrow end, etc.
I write these up all the time as not meeting minimum safety standards and there are basically three ways to address these: 1) rip them out and build them correctly, and we all know that is not going to happen; 2) address them as a liability issue with more insurance specifically for them, let's say it cost you $100 more per year to specifically cover these stairs, $100 per year for a 30 year mortgage is $3,000, for a 70 year life of the house if $7,000, try to get as much of that as you can, because you will likely be passing that money on to your buyer when you go to sell; 3) ignore them, you can always ignore anything - but I would not take this option.
Originally Posted By: rmoore This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
We have a lot of these in 1900-1930 homes that have had attic spaces converted to “2nd” stories. Almost always wrong. Changing or “fixing” them would require major surgery to the home. I write them up as a “safety concern”, and make sure to explain on site why they are non-conforming. The normal reaction is along the lines of “Oh yeah, I can see how that could be a problem, but we’ll get used to them”.
I'm doubt any of them are ever going to be altered so I'm not sure what else we can do but make the client very aware of the hazards. Jerry's thing about liability insurance, while probably a good idea, is not an area I've ever gotten into. Do others make insurance recommendations?
-- Richard Moore
Rest Assured Inspection Services
Seattle, WA
www.rainspect.com
Originally Posted By: dbowers This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Guys -
Why all the sugar coating. Tell them its a significant safety hazard; tell them the first time they have a party somebody will loose their footing, trip and fall - breaking their leg in 7 places and breaking their hip also; that person will have an out of work attorney for their cousin; they will get sued and loose their house and life-savings. Recommend they have a licensed and competent remodeling contractor remove the 2nd floor of the house and rebuild the whole thing - after having the site properly reviewed by a licensed geo-technical engineer.
Why not go gonads to the wall - you know nothings gonna happen anyway.
Originally Posted By: jpeck This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
dbowers wrote:
Guys -
Why all the sugar coating. Tell them its a significant safety hazard; tell them the first time they have a party somebody will loose their footing, trip and fall - breaking their leg in 7 places and breaking their hip also; that person will have an out of work attorney for their cousin; they will get sued and loose their house and life-savings.
That's the reason for the specific insurance coverage. And is almost exactly what I explain to them. Do you want to loose your house because someone falls down that unsafe stairway?
Sometimes, I tell them (for stairways worse than that one) "The stairway is unsafe and should not be used until they are rebuilt. That means the upstairs bedrooms are not considered "accessible". I've even done that on new houses at final walkthrough.
Quote:
Recommend they have a licensed and competent remodeling contractor remove the 2nd floor of the house
"Until you can see the blue sky above." But that's a little extreme for this.
Quote:
Why not go gonads to the wall - you know nothings gonna happen anyway.
Which is why you should give them an alternative, something which can actually benefit them. The liability protections insurance angle.
"When your friend falls down the stairs, the insurance will not protect them from injury, however, after all is said and done, the insurance will help protect you from losing the house and whatever else they come after."
Originally Posted By: cradan This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Tell your client that they really haven’t lived yet until they can enjoy the opportunity, first-hand, to move the armoire and 4-seater couch up those stairs…
