I agree 100% with this statement. If a sprinkler goes off, insurance companies and lawyers spend a lot of time finding out the last person/company to touch that head.
Mike Hill -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 12:50 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: removing sprinkler on drop I'll bet there would have been an "allegation of negligence" action against the sprinkler contractor even if the sprinkler had been replaced. If the sprinkler hadn't been relocated they would have gone after them for having done work in the suite. Have you ever heard an owner say "don't worry we're sure the sprinkler contractor wasn't at fault" after an accidental discharge? Ron F -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 9:29 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: removing sprinkler on drop I was asked about 4 years ago to assist with a lawsuit as either a technical consultant or designated expert that was focused on this exact issue. The case was over a sprinkler that discharged in a retail suite that was being remodeled. A sprinkler contractor had relocated a sprinkler by wrenching out the drop with sprinkler intact, and reinstalling it a couple feet away. After they did the work, there were painters and finishers working in the suite over a weekend. Sunday night, the sprinkler released and flooded the suite, wrecked the new paint and drywall, etc., etc. Neither side could prove their points. The sprinkie alleged that other trades must have hit the pipe and the finishers and painters were using pads and rollers on extensions, so that was a distinct possibility. And there were teeth marks on the drop, but it wasn't possible to say forensically and with certainty if they were made during the T.I. or rough-in. But, there was no way corroborate the fitter's affidavit that he hadn't dropped, wrenched or mishandled the sprinkler. No forensic conclusions could be reached regarding the sprinkler, as certain parts were missing and someone (a responding firefighter, allegedly) had badly damaged the sprinkler. The bottom line is that if the sprinkler had been new, there would have been no allegation of negligence against the sprinkie. Whatever sprinklers cost, this is the new price of tea in China folks. Adjust prices and let's move on. Steve -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Greg McGahan Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 9:19 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: removing sprinkler on drop H ave we sufficient evidence that it is the reinstalled heads are the ones accidently discharging? It just seems like a waste to throw a 20 dollar head away because you have to remove and reinstall.....or even a 3 dollar head. We WILL comply with code, but I strongly disagree. Greg On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Todd - Work <[email protected]> wrote: > I would think that the vast majority of problems in mis-handling > sprinklers in this manner come from premature actuation (especially > with glass bulb) and not failure to actuate in a fire. I would also > think that only in very rare circumstances would you lose a building > due to an accidental discharge of a sprinkler. > > Todd G Williams, PE > Fire Protection Design/Consulting > Stonington, CT > www.fpdc.com > > On Sep 5, 2013, at 11:48 AM, "Cahill, Christopher" > <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > "then it appears you can re-use sprinklers left in drops or sprigs" > Where does this appearance come from? I don't see it in the Code, > Annex or Handbook. Quite frankly, that is the only place that counts > in descending order of priority. > > > > I agree with Todd there is some judgment and risk tolerance. I'm > > sure > not 'buying' a building loss over what a <$10 device I my current role. > When I was a contractor maybe we weren't perfect in this regard. > When I was an AHJ if asked - new, and lot of don't ask don't tell. > > > > Chris Cahill, PE* > > Senior Fire Protection Engineer > > Burns & McDonnell > > 8201 Norman Center Drive > > Bloomington, MN 55437 > > Phone: 952.656.3652 > > Fax: 952.229.2923 > > [email protected] > > www.burnsmcd.com > > > > Proud to be one of FORTUNE's 100 Best Companies to Work For > > *Registered in: MN > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Mark A. > Sornsin, P.E. > > Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 10:27 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: RE: removing sprinkler on drop > > > > I would argue that this shouldn't be an argument as long as it is > specified up-front. If the owner or engineer says do not reinstall, > then don't argue, because if you win, it is your butt on the line > should the head fail. > > > > If this is a competitive bid situation or direct work with owner, > > with > no c > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er.org > -- Greg McGahan Living Water Fire Protection, LLC <http://www.livingwaterfp.com> 1160 McKenzie Road Cantonment, FL 32533 850-937-1850 fax 850-937-1852 _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler .org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
