advanced search

The Case of the Misplaced Air-Handling Unit

Dec 1, 2008 12:00 PM, By Leonard Greene, P.E., Orbital Engineering and Consulting

The focus then shifted to who would have removed the luminaire and left the bare conductors exposed. I opined it was obviously the mechanical contractor, based on the field conditions, evidence, and chronology. The luminaires in this hall had been installed five years earlier. According to school and district records, no other work had been performed in the accident area other than the HVAC replacement. The defense countered with the argument that the mechanical contractor would have notified the project engineer and project electrician (who was hired by the mechanical subcontractor to install new disconnects) of the issue — a scenario that would have resolved the problem through proper channels.

In my experience, this theory did not fit reality, especially due to the fact that there was a very small probability that the electrician was on the job the exact day the air handler was installed. Another argument postulated by the defense was lack of a paper trail, which, in turn, somehow proved the contractor's innocence.

Because my engineering design practice included A/C retrofit work for many schools in the county, I felt comfortable explaining how the evidence pointed toward the mechanical contractor. Given the lack of involvement of the engineer, issuing a request for instructions on how to handle the problem would take more time and effort than just moving the luminaire. Although intent is difficult to prove, I gave the benefit of doubt to the contractor.

I alleged that he undoubtedly planned to notify others after the fact; however, he forgot. Ironically, no one was able to produce “as-built” plans (as called for in the contract) either. In addition, our requests for production of closeout documents from either party resulted in no action. This was surprising to me, as my experience with as-built plans, warranty information, equipment service data, etc., shows you must provide these items to the owner via the engineer and contractor prior to receipt of your final payment.

My opinion as to the responsibility of the project engineer hired to do the work was also based on my experience as engineer of record for similar projects. Our state architectural/engineer contracts govern how this work is to be executed by the design professional. Specifically, a rough-in inspection is required prior to closing the ceiling, and final inspection should also include an above-ceiling inspection by the design professional. Either the engineer did these inspections and never issued a report, warned of “issues” above the ceiling, or never stuck his head up there. Furthermore, he never noticed the missing fixture at the location of the new unit — not to mention the fact that the outside air duct was not installed as required.

Looking at this case from a big-picture perspective, it's also important to note the engineer's responsibility as well. It is the project engineer's responsibility to ensure the work is done by the contractor in accordance with design intent, codes, as well as State Department of Education and good practice requirements.

Lessons learned

Looking back at this case, I think the biggest lesson to be learned is that even the smallest projects can present big hazards. Combining the narrow project scope, unsophisticated owner, out-of-town engineer/contractor, and rural location, this particular situation created an environment that, in my opinion, almost invited negligence.

What should the engineer have done about the deplorable above-ceiling conditions? First of all, he should have advised the owner in writing subsequent to his first site visit. Although the owner obviously wouldn't want to hear about problems and potential hazards, public safety is a fundamental responsibility of the engineer. Providing such notice can also provide the engineer with legal protection. Last but not least, a thorough final inspection with a field report was blatantly missing. In the end, both the contractor and engineer settled with the plaintiff to avoid going to trial.

Greene is a licensed mechanical/electrical engineer for Orbital Engineering and Consulting in Charleston, S.C. He can be reached at Lag@orbitaleng.com.

Sidebar: Accident Reenactment

My reconstruction of the accident indicated current path was from the victim's right-hand finger to the left side of his temple, which came in contact with the grounded ceiling grid structure. This determination was based on entry and exit burn wounds in medical records.

The current path was a key issue for the defense due to neurological injury. They argued that the current path would not have traveled via the nervous system. As the investigating forensic engineer, I argued the nervous system headquarters was along the path of current travel and nerves are the electrical circuits of the body.

Want to use this article? Click here for options!

© 2012 Penton Business Media, Inc.

---

Acceptable Use Policy blog comments powered by Disqus

Browse Back Issues Select an Issue EC&M Magazine | April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 1, 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 1, 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 1, 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 1, 2006 May 1, 2006 April 2006 March 1, 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 1, 2004 January 1, 2004 December 1, 2003 November 1, 2003 October 1, 2003 September 1, 2003 August 1, 2003 July 1, 2003 June 1, 2003 May 1, 2003 April 1, 2003 March 1, 2003 February 1, 2003 January 1, 2003 December 1, 2002 November 1, 2002 October 1, 2002 September 1, 2002 August 1, 2002 July 1, 2002 June 1, 2002 May 1, 2002 April 1, 2002 March 1, 2002 February 1, 2002 January 1, 2002 December 1, 2001 November 1, 2001 October 1, 2001 September 1, 2001 August 1, 2001 July 1, 2001 June 1, 2001 May 1, 2001 April 1, 2001 March 1, 2001 February 1, 2001 February 1, 1995 January 1, 2001 December 1, 2000 November 1, 2000 October 1, 2000 September 1, 2000 August 1, 2000 July 1, 2000 June 1, 2000 May 1, 2000 April 1, 2000 March 1, 2000 February 1, 2000 January 1, 2000 December 1, 1999 November 1, 1999 October 1, 1999 September 1, 1999 August 1, 1999 July 1, 1999 June 1, 1999 May 1, 1999 April 1, 1999 March 1, 1999 February 1, 1999 January 1, 1999 December 1, 1998 November 1, 1998 October 1, 1998 September 1, 1998 August 1, 1998 July 1, 1998 June 1, 1998 May 1, 1998 April 1, 1998 March 1, 1998 February 1, 1998 January 1, 1998 December 1, 1997 November 1, 1997 December 1, 1996 November 1, 1996 October 1, 1996 September 1, 1996 August 1, 1996 July 1, 1996 June 1, 1996 May 1, 1996 April 1, 1996 March 1, 1996 February 1, 1996 January 1, 1996 December 1, 1995 November 30, 1995 November 1, 1995 October 1, 1995 September 1, 1995 August 1, 1995 July 1, 1995 June 1, 1995 May 1, 1995 April 1, 1995 March 1, 1995

browse e-newsletters