I tend to agree with Eric, especially on the risk associated with
potential litigation. I once was an expert where a woman tripped on
what was essentially a crack in a city sidewalk. My role was to
determine when the crack occurred in the concrete. Tripping on the
crack ddn't break her mother's back, but she did smash her elbow
irrepairably, which wasn't determined until after great personal
suffering and over a $100k of expenses, some of which were personal,
and some of which were insured by the company that started the lawsuit.
If she had tripped on a branch in the woods, there would have been no
lawsuit because broken branches are an act of a blameless and fickle
god. But a crack in the city sidewalk meant that some legal entity was
at fault (sic) because they were responsible for maintaining perfect
city sidewalks. They needed to compensate the insurance company, the
attorney, and if anything was left over, the hapless victim.
Poor Chris. He now realizes that he must sell his house immediately,
as is, at a huge loss, and possibly with a few $'s thrown in for good
measure, just because he didn't get a registered architect, a PE, and a
liscensed and bonded contractor to stack some rocks in his back yard.
Not to mentioned divorced so that he can loose the liability associated
with that other rock stacker. All just to limit the bone-cruishing
liability that might occur if the inlaws or a thief tripped and fell.
Note to Chris. Leave NYC and move to the country. You won't be able
to make a living writing about the architectural significance of T111
vs. tar paper, but you would be able to stack rocks without incurring
any meaningless or meaningful liability. And you will be able to leave
a legacy of stacked rocks, just like all those farmers did before you.
Steve Stokowski
-----Original Message-----
From: Hammarberg, Eric <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tue, Jul 20, 2010 9:43 am
Subject: Re: [BP] stone steps
Obviously an old irregular construction that has settled into its
"place" is most idyllic, but construction new stairs is not quite the
same.
I would lean towards code compliance and regularity. The last thing
anyone wants is an elderly, or ANY relative or neighbor to fall. BTW, do
you have handrail(s)? What would your insurance broker say if there was
an accident?
The <4" is technically a "tripping hazard" so that is a no-no
The "deeper tread lesser riser" on exterior is much more to my liking as
well but I am a 2-riser stair climber anyway, inside or out. Must be
related to bicycling. A typical crank arm on a bike is 175mm (6 7/8") so
a full turn of the cranks ~ 13 3/4" or 2 risers.
Regularity is in the code, if I recall about a maximum difference in any
dimension of 3/8" over the length of the stairs and 1/4" between
adjacent units - or something like that. However, I also like to close
my eyes and walk the stairs to see if it "feels" right.
Sorry, I guess I have done too much litigation work.
Eric Hammarberg
Vice President
Thornton Tomasetti
51 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10010
T 917.661.7800 F 917.661.7801
D 917.661.8160
[log in to unmask]
www.ThorntonTomasetti.com
--
**Please remember to trim posts, as requested in the Terms of Service**
To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
<http://listserv.icors.org/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>
|
