Just got the latest JLC. Article on pg 19 about a deck collapse on the July 4 weekend in Hughsonville NY. Excerpts follow:
Deck was built in 1999, and was a second story deck at a house. Looking at the pic, there appears to be a partial basement, so the deck height had to be … 14 ft?. No dimensions of the deck were given. The HO lady was inside putting swimming trunks on the kiddos when she heard a boom, and the deck was gone. She had a swimming pool on the deck, with about 3 feet of water … the pool almost filled the deck … FD estimated it held 2500 gallons … a total of about 180 psf. Professor Woeste of VaTech says the deck could have, theoretically, supported 7.7 inches of water in the pool.
The joist hangers at the house end appeared to be undersized, but the joists were still hanging from them. There were no hangers at the outboard ends of the joists.
Quote from town firefighter and police officer (must be a big town) Mark Liebermann “These people just didn’t understand that you can’t put a freakin’ swimming pool on top of a deck.” There were no injuries
Whenever you are asked if you can do a job, tell’em “Certainly, I can!” Then get busy and find out how to do it. T. Roosevelt
Edited 8/6/2004 12:53 pm ET by Ed Hilton
Replies
Awesome pics of this available at:
http://www.hfd45.org/060104.htm
Pete
Holy cow... what a relief that they were inside at the time.
Dumb move aside, it might serve as a reminder to us that there is probably no such thing as "overbuilt" when it comes to safety (not that I could ever imagine someone putting a swimming pool on a deck!). People do strange things.
Those pics were pretty dark and it was hard to see into the shadows.
Here are some of them with the shadows "opened up" for more detail:
"It is as hard for the good to suspect evil, as it is for the bad to suspect good."
-- Marcus Tullius Cicero, statesman, orator, writer (106-43 BCE)
Good thing she didn't have the kids in the pool yet. Could have been pretty serious.
Liberal: a religious group with four commandments and six suggestions [The Pessimists Dictionary]
Also a good thing no one was standing on the lower deck. Interesting that the FD site says it happened in early June ... the JLC article starts out "Independence day weekend...".
Obviously the builder followed the ledger attaching instructions in FHB :)
And that was the only access to the second floor!
Whenever you are asked if you can do a job, tell'em "Certainly, I can!" Then get busy and find out how to do it. T. Roosevelt
Edited 8/6/2004 2:00 pm ET by Ed Hilton
"And that was the only access to the second floor!"
I also thought that was odd. Definitely not a good idea in a fire.Did you ever wonder if the person in the puddle is real, and you're just a reflection of him?
I agree with all, that there should be more than one location for egress. But perhaps the codes in that town state that if a bedroom window opens onto a porch roof, then that covers the occupants. In a fire, the firefighters simply put a ladder to the roof, and everyone is safe.
But here's another question, since more than one of us owns and manages a rental or two......
Who do you think will end up paying for the rebuild (and for the lost rent, and etc.)?
It is obvious that the builder is not liable. It seems just as obvious that the owner is not at fault. But will the renter pay?
And of course, since the owner did not have any warning signs about not putting a cubic yard of water on every square yard of deck..............?
Unless you're the lead dog, the view just never changes.
"Who do you think will end up paying for the rebuild (and for the lost rent, and etc.)?"
I'd venture to guess that the finger pointing started about 2 hours after it happened. Everyone is blaming everyone else, and the insurance companies are battling it out.
"It is obvious that the builder is not liable."
I don't agree. The ledger/band board connection obviously failed. That's good fodder for the insurance companies and lawyers to work with. All a builder has to do is set foot on a jobsite, and he's liable for just about anything. (As far as the insurance companies and lawyers are concerned)
"It seems just as obvious that the owner is not at fault."
The insurance companies and lawyers won't see it that way. As you mentioned, the owner probably didn't specifically TELL the renter not to overload the porch.How much does it cost to entice a dope-smoking UNIX system guru to Dayton? -- Brian Boyle, UNIX/WORLD's First Annual Salary Survey
> The ledger/band board connection obviously failed.
True, but in a case like this, that doesn't mean it was faulty. If one edge of the deck is supported in a way that's 90% as strong as the other, and you add water to a centrally located pool until it fails, it's the 90% side that will fail before the 100% side. And if the pool was pushed out past center, even if that were the stronger edge, it might have failed first. Anything that can be built, no matter how well, can always be destroyed by overloading it.
I wonder if maybe the long posts bent outward enough that the tail of one joist was able to slip off the inboard edge of the ledger, starting a progressive failure.
-- J.S.
You're probably right - It maybe wasn't "faulty".
But I doubt a ledger like that would meet any building code. Abd the single band board was probably inadequate. It most likely did twist, as you mentioned may have happened.
I figure if it wasn't up to whatever code the state had - Even if there were no local codes, or no LOCAL building department - The lawyers would have a field day calling it a "structural defect".
.
For example - I got indirectly involved in a lawsuit between a GC and a HO. One of the "structural defects" the lawyer listed in the lawsuit was that the floor plywood was only 23/32" thick, instead of the 3/4" thick plywood that was in the contract.
A pathetically minor detail, but the lawyer used it.Bathe twice a day to be really clean, once a day to be passable clean, and once a week to avoid being a public menace. [Anthony Burgess]
re: outboard ledger ... the JLC article says "Seemingly undersized joist hangers still supported the joist ends at the house ledger after the collapse. At the other end, there were no hangers. The joists pulled away from an outer rim member, which appeared to have snapped in half."Whenever you are asked if you can do a job, tell'em "Certainly, I can!" Then get busy and find out how to do it. T. Roosevelt
> The joists pulled away from an outer rim member, which appeared to have snapped in half."
Looking carefully at the pictures again, I don't see that. Third row left picture on the right there's a piece that might be the ledger, but it could also just be a deck plank. Fourth and fifth row right pictures show the broken ends of three deck planks, but other than that, I don't see broken wood. The main failure seems to be wood coming disconnected, not wood breaking.
But the other possibility is that the fire department moved some of the evidence before these pictures were taken.
-- J.S.
Excuuuussseeeee me! Hey! I'm just copying the words from JLC. Go get your own subscription! :)
But you're right ... the pictures don't show the broken rim/ledger.
Whenever you are asked if you can do a job, tell'em "Certainly, I can!" Then get busy and find out how to do it. T. Roosevelt
I wish that I had read this before I just spent all that time saving the photos, resizing, enhancing, sharpening, and zooming.
But I love a good mystery anyways.
what I saw was this;
No evidence of joist hangers on the exterior ledger joist/beam - shiny spots looking like toenails only.
No evidence of a ledger beam, but it might have been removed by firemen before photo.
Lots of evidence that this builder did no notching anywhere in the posts for horizontal members to connect. His MO seemed to be to sidesaddle with fasteners. see #4 where the stair treads are fastened with underclips instaed of notching.
The ledger to house connection - which didn't fail - was bolted on with thru bolts or lags at about every four feet. Other horizontal connections still extant are there by benefit of nails only.
what I see sugggests that the outside ledger waas only a single two by and that it held the joists by toenail only. It seems that it was held to the upright 4x6 or 6x6 posts by only nails, screws, or possibly a lag or two ( though I see no sign of anything larger tahn 1/8" diameter)
No here is where the mystery deepens for me - it is ter4ribly inconsistant for these connections to be made in such different ways - secure at house and half-azzed at perimeter. my first impression there is that two different crews did the work. Maybe a contractor had one guy start it and another one finish it. Or maybe by time they got to the ourside, it was geting too close to friday PM and beer-thirty o'clock. " Just hurry up AND GET IT IN PLACE AND WE'LL FIX IT RIGHT NEXT WEEK WHEN WE COME BACK..."
Or there could be another possibility to explain the inconsistancy. Suppose the contractor got started and discovered that the owners deposit check had bounced... > and long story short>... the owner finished the job,. with the results we see here.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
Boss:
You said: >>But I doubt a ledger like that would meet any building code.<< are you talking about the fact that the joist hangers are under sized, or are you talking about the outboard edge of the deck?
BTW. Most all "new" joist hangers I see have the toenailed style nail holes on the joist part of the joist hanger. I have never seen specific instructions to do so, but I always use 10p or 16p HD Gal nails here. Several times I have seen joist hangers that have been fastened at this point with the little 1.25" joist hangers nails. You can always tell because the joist hangers nails have the size molded right in the head. To me, even thoguh I have not seen specific technical info on this, I think using the little nails at this point shows a lack of common sense - maybe I'm wrong? Matt
The Simpson catalog is a wondeful reference ... you should ask for one on their web site ... strongtie.com
Looking at page 46 of catalog C-2003, it shows that all hte nails should be the same size for the face mount double shear hangers. Where they specify 10d common nails, they note that 16d sinkers may be used with the same rating.
On page 11, there is a table that gives rating factors for different size nails. If they specify 16d common and you use 12d common, you are supposed to derate the hanger loads by a factor of 0.84
Whenever you are asked if you can do a job, tell'em "Certainly, I can!" Then get busy and find out how to do it. T. Roosevelt
What I meant was that I doubt the ledger method of ataching the joists to the outer rim joist was adequate. I suspect the rim bord twisted under load, and the joists just slipped off the ledger. The nails driven into the end grain wouldn't be worth much.
Regarding the angles "Shear nailing" on the Simpson hangers - Their instructions specifically prohibit the use of the "shorty" nails for that.
As someone already mentioned, Simpson has very specific instructions about what nails you should and shouldn't use for just about every application. You lumberyard or truss supplier might have a copy they'll give you.Will starve for food. Doesn't work.
Boss:
We were having a little communications based on difference in term usage. Where I live a ledger is the 2x10 or whatever that is bolted to the house. A ledger strip is a 2x2 (or rarely a 2x4) nailed below joists to support those joists. We would call a single outboard joist a band, rim joist or header joist - which should have been doubled to make it a beam. I think ledger strips are fine as long as they are augmented with at least 6 or 8 toe nails. I think we all agree that face nailing does not provide much holding power in sheer loading applications like we are talking about here.
Looking at the pictures, I couldn't really see much except in the one showing the joist hangers. Like I said above - the deck had a pool on it - who cares how it failed. I'm glad that no one got hurt, but I think even though all the criteria weren't met, they aught to give a Darwin award to who ever put the pool there. Matt
Matt, me son:
A rim joist doesn't become a beam just because it's doubled--at least the way I learned to use those words. A beam is a beam because it's structural, specifically sized to hold a certain load over a certain span. I can envision circumstances where a 2x2 could function quite safely as a 'beam'--say, under Barbie's Dream Deck--and others where quadrupled 2x12's couldn't...like the Empire State Building.
A rim joist serves two completely different functions: (1) it covers the ends of the joists to hold out the weather and provide a solid nailing surface for finish trim; and (2) it provides a way to prevent the 'ordinary' joists from twisting or racking under lateral floor loads.
Anybody who supports a deck or any other floor by holding up the rim joists with posts and nailing the floor joists to it--with or without joist hangers--doesn't understand how to frame a floor.
Dinosaur
'Y-a-tu de la justice dans ce maudit monde?
" A ledger strip is a 2x2 (or rarely a 2x4) nailed below joists to support those joists."
Looking at the pictures, I was under the impression that a 2X2 "ledger strip" (What I was referring to as a ledger) was on the outer band board, under the end of the joists.
And that's waht I was thinking had failed.Children are like wet concrete. Whatever falls on them makes an impression.
Of course, a ledger is also only held up by nails, but at least they aren't going into end grain. When we nailed lookouts to window frames to support planks to work from, my boss always insisted we put a 2x4 under the 2x's--"otherwise you're just relying on four little nails to hold you; you don't want to do that, do you?"
yea, like I said, I couldn't get that much out of the pictures. Also, we have nailing requirements for ledger strips, specifically, that there be 3 nails below each joist being supported. I think part of the reason ledger strips get a bad name is that often people don't toenail the joist in place very well - which is part of the process. I have known some carps who used 8s for toe nails - some people you can't reason with... Matt
I think all this talk of 2x2 ledger strips is off-topic since after reviewing the photos again, when I look at the joists still dangling out in the air, I see no notches cut in the bottom of them for a ledger strip.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
I didn't look at the pictures as close as you did.
I was under the impression after a quick look that there was a 2X2 ledger there.
It could have been a 2X10 rim board and 2X8 joist and not been notched for a 2X2 ledger.
But I'll take your word for it if you don't think there was a ledger there. You obviously have more experience do to your advanced age. (-:You can always tell a Harvard man, but you can't tell him much.
my increased age has decreased my eyesight tho'...
But I zoomed and brightened where i needed to and in one of them, i saw the back side of the 4x6 post that the rim joist was still attached to. You could see a shadow on it that indicated that therre was a 2x8 under the joist set, but no holes big enough to notice, so probably no lags and definitely no through-bolts.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
"I think ledger strips are fine as long as they are augmented with at least 6 or 8 toe nails."
I'll agree with the terminology, which we can all get careless with from time to time, and with your statement quoted above, but if that ledger strip is applied to a single two by ten joist for a beam, no matter how many toenails are included on each joist, that beam will fali eventaully, even without the ten tons of foolishness added to the load
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
Am I the only one who finds the double shear joist hangers lacking with respect to holding the joist in the hanger? I realize it should not be a problem but if in a region where quakes might happen I can see the joist pulling out. The small bite the toenail gets is great for holding the hanger to the ledger/beam/etc but does little to nothing to secure the joist.
The Simpson book/website makes for pretty good study, those "little hanger nails" have some pretty good specs. They are pretty great in shear but do not have all that much pullout, but your joist will come out of the hanger before you pull the hanger off it's attachment.
Edited 8/8/2004 12:04 am ET by RASCONC
Do you look at the joist hanger itself at all? Simpson stamps instructions denominating the right fastener to use right there on the face of it. I don't know about the older ones or the cheaper brands tho'
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
>>All a builder has to do is set foot on a jobsite, and he's liable for just about anything. (As far as the insurance companies and lawyers are concerned)
Imagine being a home inspector.
"It is as hard for the good to suspect evil, as it is for the bad to suspect good."
-- Marcus Tullius Cicero, statesman, orator, writer (106-43 BCE)
RE: Home Inspector
Actually, some Home Inspector's contracts have disclaimers in them, absolving them of any legal action.Renaissance RestorationsAntique & Victorian Home Restoration Serviceshttp://www.renaissancerestorations.com
Yeah, but some contract terms are not enforceable in court. Last time I checked, a waiver of negligence is one example.
>>Yeah, but some contract terms are not enforceable in court. Last time I checked, a waiver of negligence is one example.
In NY, one can/could waive "mere negligence" but can/could not waive "gross negligence."
It is a pretty subject difference between "mere" and "gross" negligence, however.
Different states will have different rules.
"It is as hard for the good to suspect evil, as it is for the bad to suspect good."
-- Marcus Tullius Cicero, statesman, orator, writer (106-43 BCE)
>>RE: Home Inspector
>>Actually, some Home Inspector's contracts have disclaimers in them, absolving them of any legal action.
Actually, the standard clause is usually a limitation on liability to a specified amount, typically the amount of the inspection.
The E&O insurance carriers for the HI industry require that clause.
Some courts have upheld those clauses, some haven't
I offer 2 choices to my clients; the "standard inspection" lasting 2-3 hours with a limitation on liability; and "Inspection Plus" with no limitation on liability and a significantly higher fee and much more time spent.
I figure that will help if someone tries to fight the limitation on liability
No one has ever gone for the Inspection Plus.
"It is as hard for the good to suspect evil, as it is for the bad to suspect good."
-- Marcus Tullius Cicero, statesman, orator, writer (106-43 BCE)
"since more than one of us owns and manages a rental or two"
Since you'd be an idiot to not have a "no tampoline" clause in there, just add swimming pool to that clause in the rental contract.
That and due diligence (the occasional drive-by and following up on any violations) might not totally eliminate but woud reduce the owner's / manager's exposure.David Thomas Overlooking Cook Inlet in Kenai, Alaska
Does this bring to mind the question posed about a month ago by someone who wondered about a swimming pool on the deck he built? (He was surprised to see that the HO has put a pool on the deck and wondered what he should do about it.) If he didn't get that resolved, he should show the photos of this disaster to the HO he was working with.
Good memory! I remember that discussion ... seems to me the poster was actually a building inspector .. or maybe a home inspoector.
What about the occassional questions we get here about putting a hot tub on a deck...
Whenever you are asked if you can do a job, tell'em "Certainly, I can!" Then get busy and find out how to do it. T. Roosevelt
I work for a deck building outfit and the one thing we always do is check to see if a hot tub or some other seriously heavy item is going to be placed on the finished deck. We run framing at 12" oc when this happens and beef up the beam or add a second to distribute the load even more. But putting a pool on a deck is just stupidity.
Another poster reminded me that the guy was an insurance inspector. Guy should have copies of the photos in his briefcase for times like that to show the people! :-)
Edited 8/7/2004 9:35 am ET by Danno
Ed, reread the article. It does not say when it hapened, just that Independence Day came and went without any reports of fatal catastrophes... :-)
It goes on to tell about this near tragedy.
I wonder if they had a permit to build that deck.
My guess is that more than 3/4 of HO's dont get permits for decks.
aThe secret of Zen in two words is, "Not always so"!
http://CLIFFORDRENOVATIONS.COM
The first thing that comes to mind is: Duh!
That's about 20,000 lbs!
Failure points are interesting. No joists appear broken and the outside ledger is in intact.
Sorry to chime in so Late I've been gone for a week.
The failure as I see it was that there is no beam run Under the outter rim or joists. the only thing holding up the outter joists was nails which have a shear strength of about 150# per nail.
The failure was lack of proper approved plans or a proper inspection on the deck.
I am so glad none was in the pool..................
"Rather be a hammer than a nail"
Bob
Bob:
In NC we build deck either with drop girders or flush girders. Girders are most often a double 2x8 or 2x10 depending on the span between support posts, but could even be a triple. A drop girder (beam) is what we call the method you are referring to (if I read you correctly). A flush girder (beam) is often used when no cantilever is needed, and joists are attached via joist hangers or they sit on top of a ledger strip and are toe-nailed to the girder. Either type of beam passes inspection just fine. When looking at a project constructed in a different part of the country you may see things that are not acceptable in your state, but likewise may see things that you consider overkill. Like the fact that we cannot use lag screws for anything except railing post attachment. Post to beam attachment, diagonal brace attachment, and ledger board to house attachment all require 5/8" through bolts with nuts and washers - and believe me - those suckers will be there for the duration!
Peace,Matt
Matt,
Drop Girders or beams are exactly what I'm referring to. Why would anyone rely on nails to support the ends of joists unless they were cantilevered off of a beam or girder?
I don't like the look of decks that are not cantilevered at least 2', but at least the weight is on top of a beam run which is on top of a post which is on top of a substantial footing.
"Rather be a hammer than a nail"
Bob
Edited 8/8/2004 12:46 am ET by Pro-Dek
Bob,
It was really hard to tell since there seemed to be pieces missing as the FD dismantled the remains.
I agree with your take...looked to me like the outboard rim joist might have been face nailed to the inside of the posts, relying totally on the shear strength of dozen or so sixteens.
Dez
Bob,
I'm with you on this one. Looks to me like there's one piece of fractured lumber in the third or fourth pic down on the left column; not sure but it looks like it might have been part of a rim ledger.
So, no solid outboard support via a beam set on posts holding up the joists, plus a ridiculously heavy overload equals a total collapse. As you say, I'm glad no one was in the pool or on or under that deck.
I don't know what the code for that area is; I know only that I won't build a deck more than a couple of feet off the ground without installing a full built-up beam sitting on posts to hold up the outboard edge. And the posts have got to be cross-braced with let-in and through-bolted 4x4's if they are over one storey tall. Too many raucous summer parties happen on decks for me to believe it will never be overloaded....
Cripes--I'm tempted now to send a certified letter to every client for whom I've ever built a deck telling them not to put a pool or hot tub on it....
There's a thought: how do you handle that end of potential liability? When you 'deliver' the finished deck, do you get your client to sign off on what he can and cannot install on it?
Dinosaur
'Y-a-tu de la justice dans ce maudit monde?
You mean you didn't design your decks to hold hot tubs and swimming pools (or both--never know when you might like to do like the ancient Romans and jump from the hot water to the cold!)! ;-) It'd be interesting to design something, as a sort of mental exercise, that would hold a swimming pool--think of the potential live load too, with people and the sloshing water!
Personally, I don't see any sense in discussing how the deck failed since the estimated weight of the pool was 20,000 lbs!!! Think about it; that's like 5 cars!!!!
Matt
You want that all in wood--or will you allow me a few pieces of structural steel?
If I've got to frame it with wood, I'm going to use 2x6x36" deep Railroad Trestle trusses on 6' centers as beams under 4x8 BC fir joists on 12" centers. The railroad trusses sit on 8"-wide reinforced concrete piers running crosswise under them every 14', and all trusses are cross braced to their neighbors with 4x4s every 6 feet. The joists also get cross braces, 2x4's on 6' centers.
Decking would be a full 2x6 instead of 5/4.
Now, if there's anybody out there with the tables to check that, I'd be real curious to know how close I am to the truth with that off-the-top-of-my-head estimate....Dinosaur
'Y-a-tu de la justice dans ce maudit monde?
Sounds good to me--just before I fell asleep last night I thought, "Of course, like a railroad trestle bridge! If it'll hold up a train, it'll hold up a measly little pool!" But then a friend of mine in a physics class, after the teacher said, "I can hold up a brick with a toilet paper tube," said, "That's nothin', I can hold up a train with a shotgun!" :-/
While this is a scary, almost tragic story, I can't help but think of "customer misuse". The lawyers may not see it that way, and the mother may not be a structural engineer, but common sense must prevail! I'm sorry to say it, but if she couldn't figure out the weight of all that water, what other danger is she putting her kids in on regular basis? "Nobody told me" or "I didn't know" is no excuse for common sense!
You're right, but your forgetting something....
This is America. Our legal system seems to be leaning more and more to the opinion that nobody is responsible for having their own common sense. My common sense tells me that if I smoke cigarettes all day, only stopping long enough to scarf down a few Super Sized Big Mac value meals, I will feel unhealthy. May even get Super-Sized myself if the lung cancer doesn't counteract the caloric intake! However our court system seems to feel that I don't need to know any better.
Nobody seems to be responsible for anything anymore. Unless you're the one with the common sense enough to start a business and be successful at it. Then you are the one who is responsible for EVERYTHING!
So much for survival of the fittest.
QUOTE
>>This is America. Our legal system seems to be leaning more and more to the opinion that nobody is responsible for having their own common sense. My common sense tells me that if I smoke cigarettes all day, only stopping long enough to scarf down a few Super Sized Big Mac value meals, I will feel unhealthy. May even get Super-Sized myself if the lung cancer doesn't counteract the caloric intake! However our court system seems to feel that I don't need to know any better.
Nobody seems to be responsible for anything anymore. Unless you're the one with the common sense enough to start a business and be successful at it. Then you are the one who is responsible for EVERYTHING!
ENDQUOTE
Now, having said that, take a look at the views expresssed in the thread starting with msg 46143.1
Most the pople there advocate a fairly reckless response to the problem posed there.
I don't know hoqw many of them have actually started successful businesses, but the attitudes expressed there are not exactly "let me figure out how I can act responsibly in that situation."
"It is as hard for the good to suspect evil, as it is for the bad to suspect good."
-- Marcus Tullius Cicero, statesman, orator, writer (106-43 BCE)
You're right, but Bob Walker will step in and propose to sue the pool mfgr for not having warning decals ... in three languages plus pictures ... telling the consumer not to put the pool on an elevated deck. And then he'll sue the water utility for allowing her to fill the pool with their water. Don't forget the mfgr and seller of the defective nails.
Whenever you are asked if you can do a job, tell'em "Certainly, I can!" Then get busy and find out how to do it. T. Roosevelt
Good thread, Ed, but I'd bet even money that the munfacturrer, someplace in the instruction book that everyone throws away, that the pool is designed and intended to be installed only on smooth, level soil according to directions...
I went back and studied these photos even more after seeing all these comments.( I have actually started a folder in My Pictures folder named deck failures because I think I will see more of these....)
If you all will look closely at the fourth one , looking up from under the stair/landing, you will see that the remaining joists coing out from the house do cantilever across a doubled 2x10 - no - 2x8 that appears to be fastened into the side of the posts there. on the left post is a small scap of 2x4 tacked in uunder it. Maybe it was only intended to hold the 'beam' up temporarily while fastening, I don't know, but this phoito suggests that the same metyhod of loaad support was used for the main carrying 'beam' on the failed portion of the deck. what also stands out is that this doubled 2x8 beam is not through-bolted. perhaps it is lagged but we cannot tell.
I presume from all this, that the main carrying timber was a pair of 2x8's under the joists, which were also toenailed into the rim joist which still remains. Whether this carryiong beam split or separated at the connections, it is hard to tell. probably both. when I look at the other photos, I see no holes or tearout where th ebeam may have been ataached to the posts, so I assume it was not even lagged, but nailed only, or maybe s(f)ucked up with sheetrock screws.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
>>You're right, but Bob Walker will step in and propose to sue the pool mfgr for not having warning decals ... in three languages plus pictures ... telling the consumer not to put the pool on an elevated deck. And then he'll sue the water utility for allowing her to fill the pool with their water. Don't forget the mfgr and seller of the defective nails.
Kind of a funny line, but if you really think that I would suggest that then I would suggest that your pre-supposititious are getting in the way of your grasp on reality.
I am in a pretty high liability line of work, do you really think I'd be in favor of spreading the litigation net as wide as possible?
But you can be sure that in my inspections I try to anticipate potential problems and warn people about them.
I am particularly careful to keep kids out of the room when I'm doing stuff like taking load center panel and furnace covers off, but I also mention to my clients the various things people should not do that I do: e.g., I mention that OSHA has particular rules for use of ladders and walking on roofs, and that they should follow OSHA's advice and not assume that the way I do things is within those safety guidelines
And I always manage to use a variation of Norm Abrams line from his "New Yankee Workshop:" many things in houses can be dangerous if not used properly. Be sure to read, understand and follow the all of manufacturers' use and safety instructions."
And you have to give the litigation bar a lot of credit: going out and getting people to injure themselves to drum up business.
Why is it entrepreneurship and creativity is so highly valued except when it comes to the bar?
"It is as hard for the good to suspect evil, as it is for the bad to suspect good."
-- Marcus Tullius Cicero, statesman, orator, writer (106-43 BCE)
BTW, it is a little known fact that a litigation attorney holds the copyright on "Hey, dudes, watch this!"
So the next time you get tanked up and mangle yourself doing something stupid, you'll not only have to split the damages award 50 - 50 with your litigator, but you'll also owe a 20% roylaty to that guy who holds the copyright!
"It is as hard for the good to suspect evil, as it is for the bad to suspect good."
-- Marcus Tullius Cicero, statesman, orator, writer (106-43 BCE)
BTW, it is a little known fact that a litigation attorney holds the copyright on "Hey, dudes, watch this!"
Bob-
Reminds me of an article on black boxes in cars in todays paper. the article said a study found that in all states except Texas, the 94% of the last words before an accident were an expletive. I Texas, 94% of the last words were "Hold by beer....watch this." :)
You get out of life what you put into it......minus taxes.
Marv
Edited 8/9/2004 5:10 pm ET by Marv
Once again the press has confused the facts ... the actual words are "Hold my beer and my gun Bubba, an watch this here!"
Whenever you are asked if you can do a job, tell'em "Certainly, I can!" Then get busy and find out how to do it. T. Roosevelt
The builder had no idea that the HO was going to put a pool on that deck. For a pool there would have had to be special engineering. You can't blame the builder because some dufus weighted the deck with a pool.
Notice at the stairs there is a girder under the joists and the deck did not fail there. The posts look substantial enough. What that deck really needed is a girder under the outward joist ends on a HUC610. As is, the joists without hangers wouldn't have made much difference. The deck would have failed anyway because the rim joist was only nailed to the posts thus all those joists just hung on only ####few nails in the posts. The builder was an amatuer and I doubt he had engineering or if he did have engineering he did not built it to spec and got away with it..
Mike ... given the propensity for people to sue everyone in sight, you can bet that the builder will be drug into the fight. Even the owner/landlord, even though none of them knew about the pool. It would be worse if someone had been hurt. But you can rest assured that the tenant will be looking to place the blame on someone else.
Whenever you are asked if you can do a job, tell'em "Certainly, I can!" Then get busy and find out how to do it. T. Roosevelt
Now Ed, You seem to be assuming the renter will be trying to sue the landlord. Since there are no injuries involved, they have no loss to be suing for. it seems to me that the landlord, on the other hand, has a claim against the renter for damaging his property, and against the builder for not properly constructing the frame, if what I see in photos is correct.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
Take your builder hat off, and think like a lawyer ... you went through a divorce, didn't you?
The tenant has suffered severe mental anguish, loss of use of the apartment, loss of the pool, etc. Why, just think what would have happened if little Bubba had been in the pool when that defective deck collapsed. Just the thought of that makes Momma break out in a cold sweat, and she can't sleep, and she now almost constantly eats nervously, and as a result her clothes don't fit any more, and the doctor says it's not good for her health, and her blood pressure is up, and she can't work cuz all she thinks about is poor little Bubba ...
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, surely you can see that Momma's life has been ruined, and no amount of money will make it like it was, but let's send a message to all the scumbag landlords out there, and award Momma two million dollars. After all, the landlord must be an expert on decks cuz he had it built, and he should have warned Momma about that little wading pool, but he didn't, and oh Lordy, all she wanted was for Bubba to enjoy the summer like the landlord's kids in their fancy country club pool, and by the way let's go after the deck builder next week.
Whenever you are asked if you can do a job, tell'em "Certainly, I can!" Then get busy and find out how to do it. T. Roosevelt
Sorry, I just can't bring myself to think THAT much like a lawyer.
;)
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
Don't worry, he didn't come to close himself.
"It is as hard for the good to suspect evil, as it is for the bad to suspect good."
-- Marcus Tullius Cicero, statesman, orator, writer (106-43 BCE)
What? I didn't throw the snare around enough people?
Whenever you are asked if you can do a job, tell'em "Certainly, I can!" Then get busy and find out how to do it. T. Roosevelt
>>What? I didn't throw the snare around enough people?
Snare? Do you really think any self-respecting lawyer is goiing to take the chance of using a snare?
With all of the weapons we have at hand, do you really think we're going to give anyone a "spoting chance?" {G}
"It is as hard for the good to suspect evil, as it is for the bad to suspect good."
-- Marcus Tullius Cicero, statesman, orator, writer (106-43 BCE)
touche.Whenever you are asked if you can do a job, tell'em "Certainly, I can!" Then get busy and find out how to do it. T. Roosevelt