A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
Precedential Consequences of the Recent Myrick Lawsuit: Using ASCE 7-10 and ASCE 41-13 Performance Targets to Manage Seismic Risk in the Legal Arena
Structural design consultants and building owners should rethink the way that they retrofit existing structures and develop new facilities in light of a recent seminal California lawsuit: the Myrick case. Many owners adhere to the platitude that they are automatically immune from legal liability if they choose to design, build or operate a structure in accordance with minimum building code standards. This concept was toppled by the published court opinion entitled Myrick v. Mastagni, when the trial judge, the jury and the court of appeal all found that a building owner can have legal liability for the poor seismic performance of a structure even if its management and use is in accordance with the minimum standards of local ordinances and building codes. A statute, ordinance or regulation ordinarily defines a minimum standard of conduct and mere adherence to that minimum standard “does not preclude a finding that a reasonable person would have taken additional precautions under the circumstances.” How a building owner can manage this seismic risk in the legal arena will often involve early seismic performance target choices under the auspices of ASCE 7-10 and ASCE 41-13. In most scenarios, the owner’s structural design consultant will provide essential technical input on the predicted seismic performance of the facility in light of the functional uses selected by the owner, which in turn can determine the legal risk profile that the owner will assume when proceeding with the project. In most scenarios, the design professional will need to describe the costs and benefits of designing above code minimum thresholds. This usually involves the often painful consideration of spending more than the bare minimum for improved structural performance. Practical approaches to solving this problem are illustrated in a hypothetical San Francisco project where the developer wants to retrofit and reconfigure an existing urban campus, and its structural consultant helps the owner manage its seismic risk inherent in the project.
Precedential Consequences of the Recent Myrick Lawsuit: Using ASCE 7-10 and ASCE 41-13 Performance Targets to Manage Seismic Risk in the Legal Arena
Structural design consultants and building owners should rethink the way that they retrofit existing structures and develop new facilities in light of a recent seminal California lawsuit: the Myrick case. Many owners adhere to the platitude that they are automatically immune from legal liability if they choose to design, build or operate a structure in accordance with minimum building code standards. This concept was toppled by the published court opinion entitled Myrick v. Mastagni, when the trial judge, the jury and the court of appeal all found that a building owner can have legal liability for the poor seismic performance of a structure even if its management and use is in accordance with the minimum standards of local ordinances and building codes. A statute, ordinance or regulation ordinarily defines a minimum standard of conduct and mere adherence to that minimum standard “does not preclude a finding that a reasonable person would have taken additional precautions under the circumstances.” How a building owner can manage this seismic risk in the legal arena will often involve early seismic performance target choices under the auspices of ASCE 7-10 and ASCE 41-13. In most scenarios, the owner’s structural design consultant will provide essential technical input on the predicted seismic performance of the facility in light of the functional uses selected by the owner, which in turn can determine the legal risk profile that the owner will assume when proceeding with the project. In most scenarios, the design professional will need to describe the costs and benefits of designing above code minimum thresholds. This usually involves the often painful consideration of spending more than the bare minimum for improved structural performance. Practical approaches to solving this problem are illustrated in a hypothetical San Francisco project where the developer wants to retrofit and reconfigure an existing urban campus, and its structural consultant helps the owner manage its seismic risk inherent in the project.
Precedential Consequences of the Recent Myrick Lawsuit: Using ASCE 7-10 and ASCE 41-13 Performance Targets to Manage Seismic Risk in the Legal Arena
White, Mark N. (author) / Osteraas, John D. (author) / Perry, Cynthia L. (author)
Second ATC & SEI Conference on Improving the Seismic Performance of Existing Buildings and Other Structures ; 2015 ; San Francisco, California
2015-12-03
Conference paper
Electronic Resource
English
Online Contents | 1998
Online Contents | 1998
Online Contents | 1998
Online Contents | 1996
Online Contents | 1996