Gunnar Alquist
07-20-2023, 09:53 PM
Hi folks,
The other day, a couple of other California inspectors and I were discussing what each of us believes constitutes an official "Trip Hazard". I was surprised to find out that each of us used a different number: 1/4", 1/2", & 1/2".
A search of the IRC (as well as the indispensable CodeCheck) resulted in a nice round goose egg, at least as far as walkways (and the like) go. We all (or should, at least) know that stairways have a aggregate maximum 3/8" difference in riser/tread dimension. This means that the difference between the largest and smallest cannot exceed 3/8". As a result, we took to searching the documentation that we have access to (both in our respective offices as well as online) for an answer. This is what we have come up with so far...
From the ADA:
4.5.2 Changes in Level
Changes in level up to 1/4 in (6 mm) may be vertical and without edge treatment (see Fig. 7(c) ). Changes in level between 1/4 in and 1/2 in (6 mm and 13 mm) shall be beveled with a slope no greater than 1:2 (see Fig. 7(d) ). Changes in level greater than 1/2 in (13 mm) shall be accomplished by means of a ramp that complies with 4.7 or 4.8.
ADA 4.5.2 (https://www.ada.gov/law-and-regs/design-standards/1991-design-standards/#45-ground-and-floor-surfaces)
Of course, the ADA does not apply to single-family dwellings, but will to condos, townhomes, commercial buildings, etc. In addition, I believe that ADA standards could conceivably be used by opposing attorney if an inspector is involved in a lawsuit, even if the inspection was of a single-family residence.
From HUD:
TRIP HAZARD ON WALKING SURFACE
DEFINITION: Hazard caused by an abrupt change in vertical elevation or horizontal separation on any walking surface.
DEFICIENCY CRITERIA: There is an abrupt change in vertical elevation or horizontal separation on any walking surface along the normal path of travel, consisting of the following criteria:
An unintended 3/4 inch or greater vertical difference, OR
An unintended 2-inch horizontal separation perpendicular to the path of travel.
HCD Trip Hazard (https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/PIH/documents/NSPIRE-Standards-v2.1-Trip-Hazard.pdf)
Then, the NHIE Study Guide had this to say:
There is no agreed upon standard for what constitutes a reportable crack in concrete drive-ways, walkways, and patios. A common guideline is that cracks that exceed 1/4 inch in width or vertical displacement should be considered for reporting.
Safety Issues: A common defect of driveways, walkways, and patios is when one section is higher than the adjacent section. This creates a trip and fall hazard. there is no agreed upon standard for what constitutes a reportable trip hazard. A common guideline is that a 1/2 inch height difference between adjacent sections should be considered for repair.
One inspector/friend was also informed that 3/8" had been determined by "General Consensus" (whatever that is).
Apparently, my choices of trip hazard height are: 1/4", 3/8", 1/2", or 3/4". Do I arbitrarily pick one? Now I put this to others out in Inspector-Land. Presumably, we all mention trip hazards in our reports. But, my questions are:
Do you use a specific number?
If so, what number do you use?
Do you have documentation or a referenced standard?
We are interested in knowing what other inspectors/members are reporting; however, we are particularly interested in getting documentation to back up our recommendations.
A nifty document that was shared to me is this one which does provide references to published standards, including ASTM and ANSI. Unfortunately, I do not have access to these standards.
Kaufman (https://creia.memberclicks.net/ccboard/2004510707_1d9f91ea6900a6bb360821aab35f66de.pdf)
The other day, a couple of other California inspectors and I were discussing what each of us believes constitutes an official "Trip Hazard". I was surprised to find out that each of us used a different number: 1/4", 1/2", & 1/2".
A search of the IRC (as well as the indispensable CodeCheck) resulted in a nice round goose egg, at least as far as walkways (and the like) go. We all (or should, at least) know that stairways have a aggregate maximum 3/8" difference in riser/tread dimension. This means that the difference between the largest and smallest cannot exceed 3/8". As a result, we took to searching the documentation that we have access to (both in our respective offices as well as online) for an answer. This is what we have come up with so far...
From the ADA:
4.5.2 Changes in Level
Changes in level up to 1/4 in (6 mm) may be vertical and without edge treatment (see Fig. 7(c) ). Changes in level between 1/4 in and 1/2 in (6 mm and 13 mm) shall be beveled with a slope no greater than 1:2 (see Fig. 7(d) ). Changes in level greater than 1/2 in (13 mm) shall be accomplished by means of a ramp that complies with 4.7 or 4.8.
ADA 4.5.2 (https://www.ada.gov/law-and-regs/design-standards/1991-design-standards/#45-ground-and-floor-surfaces)
Of course, the ADA does not apply to single-family dwellings, but will to condos, townhomes, commercial buildings, etc. In addition, I believe that ADA standards could conceivably be used by opposing attorney if an inspector is involved in a lawsuit, even if the inspection was of a single-family residence.
From HUD:
TRIP HAZARD ON WALKING SURFACE
DEFINITION: Hazard caused by an abrupt change in vertical elevation or horizontal separation on any walking surface.
DEFICIENCY CRITERIA: There is an abrupt change in vertical elevation or horizontal separation on any walking surface along the normal path of travel, consisting of the following criteria:
An unintended 3/4 inch or greater vertical difference, OR
An unintended 2-inch horizontal separation perpendicular to the path of travel.
HCD Trip Hazard (https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/PIH/documents/NSPIRE-Standards-v2.1-Trip-Hazard.pdf)
Then, the NHIE Study Guide had this to say:
There is no agreed upon standard for what constitutes a reportable crack in concrete drive-ways, walkways, and patios. A common guideline is that cracks that exceed 1/4 inch in width or vertical displacement should be considered for reporting.
Safety Issues: A common defect of driveways, walkways, and patios is when one section is higher than the adjacent section. This creates a trip and fall hazard. there is no agreed upon standard for what constitutes a reportable trip hazard. A common guideline is that a 1/2 inch height difference between adjacent sections should be considered for repair.
One inspector/friend was also informed that 3/8" had been determined by "General Consensus" (whatever that is).
Apparently, my choices of trip hazard height are: 1/4", 3/8", 1/2", or 3/4". Do I arbitrarily pick one? Now I put this to others out in Inspector-Land. Presumably, we all mention trip hazards in our reports. But, my questions are:
Do you use a specific number?
If so, what number do you use?
Do you have documentation or a referenced standard?
We are interested in knowing what other inspectors/members are reporting; however, we are particularly interested in getting documentation to back up our recommendations.
A nifty document that was shared to me is this one which does provide references to published standards, including ASTM and ANSI. Unfortunately, I do not have access to these standards.
Kaufman (https://creia.memberclicks.net/ccboard/2004510707_1d9f91ea6900a6bb360821aab35f66de.pdf)