sloooow down. Nothing in the code of conduct/ethics says to MAXIMIZE the level of safety. Actually blindly applying such an attitude qualifies as a violation of the code. It is the obligation to meet the clients needs without ENDANGERING society. Otherwise that’s the same as saying if someone needs a car to commute to work, it has to be an Aston Martin though I’d choose an Abram M-1 tank for those tough commutes. If something in the older standard proofed to be inadequate or dangerous, THEN the PE and contractor is considered liable if they apply it (aka antifreeze). Bottomline, there is no dilemma.
Roland Huggins, PE - VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. --- Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> > On Apr 3, 2015, at 9:06 AM, <[email protected]> <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Thank you all for your response and input. > > Mark hit the nail on the head for what I was driving at regarding the PE's > obligation to society, and how one would deal with this kind of problem. If > I'm not mistaken, your code of conduct requires you to lookout for welfare > and safety of society. You can only do that by basing your design on the > most current information. But if an AHJ doesn't require the newest codes, > whether more stringent or less as many have pointed out, then as a > subcontractor you may be pricing yourself out of a competitive bid. So you > are stuck with the dilemma...meet the code of conduct, or ignore the latest > requirements to compete with other subcontractors so you can put food on your > plate. > > Going all dramatic here...but which is the lesser of two evils. Has anyone > heard of a legal case involving this type of scenario and what the outcome > was? > > Thanks, > > Sean Van Gaal _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
