I've heard it said that there are Electrical Contractors around that are of the opinion that they are only responsible for the work that they do.
Unfortunately, this isn't the case.
Once you start to work with any wiring within a building, you are responsible for the whole lot of it.
All the joints in the walls, all of the dodgy stuff in the panel, sure, it might not be your fault it's there, but if it is and you were the last person there before the place caught fire, get good insurance, believe you me you'll need it.
I tell Electricians here (mainly young one's) to make sure they check all of the important bits of the wiring when they first get into a place.
To testify as a witness (as a Fire Officer) against a new guy starting out in the trade is bad enough.
What makes it worse, is it can be easily prevented.
For God sakes, use your head.
You are liable for the whole installation once you open the panel dead front up, in some cases even less.
Unless someone want's to tell me different.
To lose your business like this is nothing short of a cop-out.
I'm not a business owner, but I've seen a lot go to the wall over a simple thing like this.
Lets just get smart, people, there's no need why this should be happening.
I'd invite any comments anyone has to offer.


[This message has been edited by Trumpy (edited 07-06-2005).]

The only thing I can offer is that liability varies from state to state here in the US.

I don't think, and it would be very hard to prove, that if you took a panel cover off, then everything in the place is your fault, or your responsibility.

Think about it, you would have to inpect every wire, every connection, and every calculation, before you installed a new receptacle?

Once again, I don't know law, but something doesn't sound right with that Trumpy.


Dnk.......

All I can say is that we are not responsibile for bringing the entire building up to code. Neither the electrician nor the inpectors can force the owner to pay for repairs unless it is a blatant safety or fire hazard ( I have tried ). You can end up in court for any reason at any time ( a girl named Sue ). From the cases that I have read about, some sort of negligence needs to be proved. One thing that I find strange about the system is there isn't a set time limit on liability. If you are negligent and someone is hurt 20 years later and it can be proved, You have had it ( got that one in a code class ). I don't think I like that last one in rule. I'd have to set up a dummy corporation and have someone follow me around and assume liability ( joking ). I hope we never have that here, things are screwed-up enough.

Here in MA the EC is only responsible for any part of the electrical system he works on. If your working on the batroom circuit you are only responsible for anything related to that circuit. It is liability limited to whatever you work on, no periferal liability. Though you may want to bring a dangerous situation to the attention of the homeowner.

Especially in older homes, I write on the contract or invoice that I recommend checking all wiring and that I am not responsible for any existing wiring or connections to existing wiring. If the wiring really should be replaced I will write that. Don't know if this covers me but it might help in court. I think this is a big problem. If you're unlicensed and uninsured you have no worries. The owner assumes responsibility since they hired someone without a license.

IMHO I think it's simpler than fault or responsibility. Lawyers go for where the money is, and a responsible electrical contractor will have a million or two in insurance.

Dave

cvelecric, I can't find that ruling on unlicensed electricians in my state regarding liability. I'm sure that a contract could be written to furnish unskilled labor to a homeowner but most handymen don't do this. Our state code says that if you perform or offer to perform ( advertise, including business cards )any skilled trade without a license you are breaking the law. As far as liability goes I wouldn't want to be the unlicensed electrician that just wired a house that had an electrical fire. They could find themselves in criminal court as well as civil court. I would suggest that anyone thinking about doing unlicensed work consult an attorney. If he says it's OK, then have fun.

It's not worth the risk - doing work with no license/insurance. I just took out a million dollar liability policy for $ 400 a year. One small job covers the cost of a years insurance. I've worked too hard for what I have to lose it !

Dnk,
Do you have to sign into a building and state what it is you are doing in there, while you are there?

I take it by that statement, you don't understand a lot about test equipment, do you?.

Trumpy, after reading this post again I would take it that your laws in New Zealand are much more strict than ours in th US. Our laws vary from county to county and even city to city. Most fires aren't taken that seriously unless someone is killed and there is some big news story. I have worked on fire damage jobs where there no investigation at all. They sometimes think it's strange that you want a copy of the Fire Marshal's report for your records. I try to keep record of everything I do and make notes and recommendations on any hazards that I find but it's hard to force owners here to make repairs. I do believe in your philosophy of covering yourself as best you can where ever you are. Most contractors here incorporate and keep very little in any corporate accounts, keep good insuance and hope for the best. I have the added protection of a rabbit's foot.

Trumpy,

Your statement in your first post read

""You are liable for the whole installation once you open the panel dead front up, in some cases even less.""


My input on that was:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Think about it, you would have to inspect every wire, every connection, and every calculation, before you installed a new receptacle?

What I was refering to, was if in fact we were held liable for everything in the place like you stated. We would be forced to inspect every wire, every connection, everything before we did any work to protect ourselves.

Once again, I don't think that sounds correct. At least not here in the states.

Now I have no idea why you would make such a condensending statement towards my use of test equipment, out of this statement, but I shall let it go. Unless you want to elaborate on it.

As for signing into a building, Yes, sometimes I have to. But here, I thought it was for the company's insurance as well as for the fire company, in case there was a fire. That way all visitors could be accounted for in case of a tragedy.
"Hopefully not caused by electrical nature"(humor, haven't figured out how to do the smiley things yet)

Dnk.....

Trouble is, these days "everybody's a lawyer." Indeed, I recently read of a service change that was followed by a fire, and a lawsuit against the contractor.
While the insurance company paid to get the matter closed, it sure looked like the actual cause was some wiring inside the house. A more cynical person might even say it looked that the occupants were busy rigging up this disaster while the contractor was changing the (exterior mounted) panel.

The whole gist of the claim against the contractor was that he somehow should have known that a dangerous condition existed within the house, and acted to correct it before energising the new service.

Not to be overlooked is that the first inquiry from the lawyers was as to the extent of the contractors' insurance- and not, 'what was the work done?'

These are serious matters- a dysfunctional legal system lets the sharks flourish, while us minnows run for cover!

With this, we return to how a successful business is based on a few good customers. When you have an established relationship, you don't have to worry (as much) about such game-playing.

New Zealand is still a constitutional monarchy, with Queen Elizabeth II as nominal head of state, and its law is still largely based on the old English Common Law, dating to before the Norman Conquest in 1066. While in recent years, NZ has looked to the USA, Canada and Australia in new-law modelling, Common Law and English jurisprudence still maintains strong persuasion in the courts there. Now, Common Law is based on perceived common sense, ( cf. Lord Denning.) and to expect any court to uphold a tort (grievance) attested by a plaintif on unreasonable grounds, like "He changed a receptacle, therefore it's all his fault the building caught fire.", for example, would almost certainly fail, given a competent lawyer and given lack of proof of direct responsibility. To get any action to succeed, Mike, you must have some proof of culpability and I think you're being a bit pessimistic as to the fairness of New Zealand's legal system.
Having said all that of course, we poor English ouselves no longer have the protection afforded by the old Anglo-Saxon codes, and are now at the mercy of stupid European lawmakers with the facile 'Bill of Human Rights', which rides roughshod over a 1000 years of hard won freedoms!
Alan

This is a topic of great interest to me. I have been concerned about my exposure to liability since I started as an EC two years ago(one man show). Does anyone really know what we are liable for and what we can do to protect ourselves?

I'm a sole prop. and am looking at becoming an s corp. It seems a bit pricy and complicated right now though. I have insurance but I guess I need to figure out exactly what it covers and for how long.

For jobs over $1000 I write up a contract. Perhaps I should have one for all jobs, no matter how small stating my hourly rate and all the terms and conditions in my other contract and have the HO sign it before I start. I hesitate doing this because it seems a bit paranoid and I feel it may turn off some of my customers. But this is the world we live in.

I know the laws are different from state to state but there must be some other CYA techniques that I'm not seeing?

Growler,
I did not mean to imply that there is some rule or law protecting unlicensed people from being sued. I should have said that you can't get blood out of rock. And liabilty lawers don't like rocks.

An interesting point on liability. I was informed in a class that Workmans Comp. Insurance was introduced to protect the employer and not the employee. It turns out that a deal was struck where an employee could not sue if covered by workmans comp. I was also informed that it mite be possible for a temp. to sue you because you are not really the employer. I just wish I could get my hands around the necks of the lawyers that think of all this mumbo jumbo. Trying to deal with the law is like trying to mark you fishing spot in the middle of a river with paint. Things keep shifting.

As they told me in Paramedic class:

I document every action on a job site, and show it on the final invoice, regardless of having a physical contract or not.

(OK, maybe not the "good samaritan" placing of a KO plug or replacing a missing plate screw, but any action that would require a "competent and trained person" per the Code)

I also will issue "written advisories" as part of the final invoice concerning pre-existing conditions that I perceive to be unsafe or outside of the local and national Codes within the structure or on the property - Al branch wiring, unsecured conduits, NM (we're in a no NM area), lack of GFCI's, and whether or not I worked on any of it. I also document whether the HO wanted it repaired or left in place.