I thought "Snakes on a Plane" was going to be about terrorists hijacking a plane full of lawyers on their way to a lawyer convention on a resort island (paid for from the money they "earned" suing people over stuff like this), and then driving the terrorists so crazy cutting back-room deals that the hijackers crash the plane into the sea just to shut them up. I was disappointed! So liability....not my favorite subject. It's the "partial" that bothers me. It says if you don't need it then you can do what you want as long as the "do" meets the code. Does that mean "fully" is the keyword inb the code that negates "partial" or does it mean that the partial part has to be constructed per the code? My logic (questionable) tends towards the latter when I look at something from an overall Building Code standpoint. A lawyer though will , if defending the latter, see it that way while his opponent will argue the former. Winning trumos all. As George always says: Follow your comfort level for risk. Anything that makes anyone else unhappy is an opportunity. I think when nothing is required partial is OK legally. I also think it's a bad idea, mostly because it suggests more than it can deliver, but also because it seems like a harder decision to defend if something goes south. I'd write a statement for inclusion in the contract documents disagreeing with the wisdom of a partial system, with reasons, and then do what I'm contracted to do. For the same reason I have always had a disclaimer regarding 13D & 13R systems a being only about life safety and what that means, with an additional instruction to the GC to get this to the owner in case I don't have direct access.
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Todd Williams <[email protected]> wrote: > The exception in section 901.2 of the IBC (2003) states: "Exception: Any > fire protection system or portion thereof not required by this code shall be > permitted to be installed for partial or complete protection provided that > such system meets the requirements of this code." Does this mean that an > Architect/Owner can pick and chose what the wants to protect if the system > is not required? Anybody dealt with this from a liability standpoint? > > Todd G. Williams, PE > Fire Protection Design/Consulting > Stonington, CT > 860.535.2080 > www.fpdc.com > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] > > To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > -- Ron Greenman Instructor Fire Protection Engineering Technology Bates Technical College 1101 So. Yakima Ave. Tacoma, WA 98405 [email protected] http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/ 253.680.7346 253.576.9700 (cell) Member: ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis Bacon, essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
