Thread: Safety Glazing in Tub

I have read this site since I started inspecting 5 years ago and not posted before. It has been an interesting and educational site that I enjoy reading.

I ran into a situation yesterday that I am interested in your feedback. My reputation locally is that my inspections are "very comprehensive" meaning that some local realtors will only use my services when they are buying for themselves. The realtors involved were quick to point out that no one else has ever seen much less called out this recommendation.

The inspection was a remodeled 1960's home. The remodel was actually pretty good, even the electrical rewire. New windows were installed all around the home. Nice windows: low e, gas filled, double pane, actually fit... There is a 2x3 window about 36" from the bottom of the bath tub that is not safety glazed. No sign of any etching anywhere.

As mentioned in several previous threads on this site, IRC 308.4.5 requires safety glazing when

5. Glazing in doors and enclosures for hot tubs, whirlpools, saunas, steam rooms, bathtubs and showers. Glazing in any part of a building wall enclosing these compartments where the bottom exposed edge of the glazing is less than 60 inches (1524 mm) measured vertically above any standing or walking surface.

The realtor called and told me the deal was coming apart because my client wants the safety glaze in the bathtub wall. The selling realtor sez: this is BS, never heard of it and won't agree. My client, according to her realtor, won't budge because she has so much confidence in me (yeah!).

I faxed her realtor the page from the IRC to use as reference. The local AHJ agreed with my position and indicates they inspect all window replacement installations. I also gave the realtor the name of the AHJ for additional support.

Reportedly, no one in the either agents' agency has ever heard of such a requirement. The buyers agent had called a local appraiser who is the reported authority for VA and FHA who indicates the safety glazing would not required on 1960's era home.

Even though I have taken an intensive IRC class, I don't do code inspections on general home inspections. I do call out safety hazards when noted. This is a safety hazard in my mind and I intend to stand my ground. More importantly, this is labeled as a hazardous condition in the IRC.

Of course, I am the only inspector in the dozen or so operating in the area who has ever had the temerity to recommend safety glazing installation in a bathtub wall in an older home. My question to you all is "in the real world of inspecting, do you call this out during your inspections?"

Similar Threads:

• Pool Safety Links
• Safety Glazing
• Make pool safety a priority - Orlando Sentinel
• Recent drowning calls remind us of child pool safety - AZFamily (subscription)
• 2,953 Archived Environmental, Pests, Health and Safety Posts

If the home was recently "remodeled" and the window at the tub was new, then it should conform to current code, no?

I agree with John. While safety glazing probably wasn't required when the house was built, it probably was when that window was replaced. It would be the responsibility of the contractor, home owner and AHJ when the work was done.

I don't understand what the issue is. You've called out the defect. It is what is is. Nothing that any agent says or believes will change the fact that it's a safety issue. My guess is that the window replacement was probably done without permits.

It's hard to believe a deal would come apart over a $200 piece of glass.

Thanks for the comments. It shouldn't be ground breaking work to call this out. I agree that it would not have been required when the home was built in the 1960's. It should certainly meet current standards when remodeled in 2010/2011. As I said, the local AHJ verifies that installing safety glaze in the tub wall is required. I think you are right about the lack of permit.

You are right for calling it out. Regardless of when the house was built, or the category of work being performed, the work shall not cause the structure to become unsafe or adversely affect the performance of the building... That's taking from 2003 IRC Appendix J Existing Buildings and Structure AJ102. And you can also refer to AJ102.4

1) Correct - safety glazing was NOT required back in the early 1960s.

2) With the remodeling work you described, it sounds like that window may well have been replaced, and as such, it would need to be safety glass.

3) Even without that window having been replaced during the remodeling, it sounds like the remodeling work may have been sufficient to trigger the house to meet current code FOR EVERYTHING.

4) Even if the work was significant enough to trigger that requirement, just because safety standards in the 1960s did not require safety glass there, safety glass was since put into the code BECAUSE installations like THAT ONE lead to serious injury and death to people ... should your client be forced to live with that hazard given all the other work which was done? Nope.

5) Should your client be forced to live with that hazard had NO other work been done? Nope.

6) The question, then, becomes not 'should it be replaced', but rather 'who is going to pay for that sucker to be replaced' - agreed?

7) That ain't your fight.

8) So, it comes down to this (and I always explained this to all of my clients before entering negotiations):
a) If the seller wants or needs to sell more than the buyer wants or needs to buy - the seller loses.
b) If the buyer wants or needs to buy more than the seller wants of needs to sell - the buyer loses.

Does it need to be replaced? YES!

Who will replace it (and cover the cost of that replacement)? You should not care. Stick to your guns and your report ... it NEEDS to be replaced ... and you reported it.

If the sellers always gave my clients enough money to cover what I found and wrote up in my report, the sellers would have had to give up the house, their first born, their bank account, and their retirements funds ... ... but my buyers (typically) only addressed a few of the items and said 'give me this much money and I will still buy your house' - (pause) - 'or we will go find another house' - (pause) - (if no response from the seller, turn and head for the door, that usually gets a response) ...

If this was one of the "...newly installed windows all around the home..." then the installing contractor (assuming there was one) may be liable and on the hook for replacement.

Jerry - I have an issue with your, "Does it need to be replaced.. Yes." comment. I fully agree that pursuant to code requirements the non-safety glazing should not be there, however, if the new buyer is prepared to accept the fault and inherrent dangers (not saying they would or should) then your replacement comment is somewhat moot. It's not like the Window Police are going to come around and whisk everyone off to jail for living in a home with this specific defect.

If this issue is such a sticking point with the buyer then maybe they are having second thoughts about the purchase and this is just one issue of many. OTH if it's potentially a deal-breaker then the realtors - if they have any business savvy - should splurge on a replacement out of commissions.

ip

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

1) Even without that window having been replaced during the remodeling, it sounds like the remodeling work may have been sufficient to trigger the house to meet current code FOR EVERYTHING.

Sounds like a bit of a stretch to say the entire house has to be brought to current code. For example, should the 1960's sill plates be replaced with pressure treated sills? Replace the undersized 2 x 6 rafters? Insulate exterior walls? Seems that would be cost prohibitive.

I would have called it out also. If the seller or seller's agent had any brains, they would just pay for the replacement glass, or start talking to whomever put in the windows last year.

Originally Posted by Ian Page

Jerry - I have an issue with your, "Does it need to be replaced.. Yes." comment. I fully agree that pursuant to code requirements the non-safety glazing should not be there, however, if the new buyer is prepared to accept the fault and inherrent dangers (not saying they would or should) then your replacement comment is somewhat moot.

Quite incorrect.

Re-read what I wrote (you even posted it above): "Does it need to be replaced.. Yes."

I will accent the critical word with all caps "Does it NEED to be replaced.. Yes."

Yes, it NEEDS to be replaced. Plain and simply put.

Then I said: "Who will replace it (and cover the cost of that replacement)? You should not care. Stick to your guns and your report ... it NEEDS to be replaced ... and you reported it."

Understand what I said? IT NEEDS to be replaced. WHO REPLACES IT (if anyone) IS NOT the concern of the home inspector. The only concern of the home inspector is that IT NEEDS to be replaced, and IT SHOULD BE in the report.

It's not like the Window Police are going to come around and whisk everyone off to jail for living in a home with this specific defect.

Nor is there any Defect Police who is going to go around and whisk anyone off to jail for living in a home with ANY defect a home inspector writes up and no one corrects ... Right? But, as a home inspector you still write those defects up ... Right? Soooo ... how is that window any different ... or do you not write up defects if you think the defect will not be corrected?

Not quite sure why you seem to feel that there has to be a presumption that a defect WILL BE corrected before the defect is worth writing up.

If this issue is such a sticking point with the buyer then maybe they are having second thoughts about the purchase and this is just one issue of many.

Could be. I raised that issue myself. And if the buyer is going to back on based on that and the seller wants to sell the house, then the seller needs to step up and say 'Hey, consider the window replaced, I'll have the window guy out here tomorrow.' - but - the seller is not saying that either, so MAYBE the seller is having second thoughts about selling to that buyer? Could be. Either way ... IT IS NOT the home inspectors problem.

OTH if it's potentially a deal-breaker then the realtors - if they have any business savvy - should splurge on a replacement out of commissions.

If the seller does not budge, and that is THE one and only deal breaker, and the seller stands fast (stupid seller if they do), then, yes, the agents should step up and kick that in - IF they actually want the deal to go through (they, too, like the seller, may have changed their minds on the deal).

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

3) Even without that window having been replaced during the remodeling, it sounds like the remodeling work may have been sufficient to trigger the house to meet current code FOR EVERYTHING.

Originally Posted by neal lewis

Sounds like a bit of a stretch to say the entire house has to be brought to current code. For example, should the 1960's sill plates be replaced with pressure treated sills? Replace the undersized 2 x 6 rafters? Insulate exterior walls? Seems that would be cost prohibitive.

As I stated in the above - from the described work, the value of the work could very well REQUIRE that the entire structure be brought to current code.

If the structure is located in a flood hazard area, then "substantial improvement" needs to be checked on, and if the improvement, alteration, repair, etc., meets the definition of "substantial improvement". While not much normally falls under substantial improvement, when it does, the requirements can be quite costly to meet. All I was doing, am doing, is making others aware of that possibility.

There is a product available that is a clear plastic overlay that can be installed to give it a degree of safety. I no longer remember the name of the product but if the seller, buyer or whoever, would check with the neighborhood window repair store they may be able to help you find it. If I recall it was used at the Pentagon on their windows after 911 to help prevent shards of flying glass. Hope this helps.
Keith

Jerry
You seem to have gone off the deep-end a little re. my post. My apologies for causing your angst. However my issue is, perhaps, more of semantics. I write up/inform my clients of all known defects observed (obviously). Some of which I would write up as being in need of replacement/remediation primarily if the issue is one of repair due to a defect, is non-functioning, causes a non-function or is an immediate danger. Others require only a comment regarding the defect. It is then up to the client to decide if they can live with the deficiency or not. The 'not' issue then becomes one of further negotiation. Using the strong term, "...in need of..." in this instance, IMO causes overdue concern in negotiations. And yes, I am concerned how my client fares and want only the best possible outcome for them.

In this particular issue, I would have said something to the effect - with emphasis - that the window should be of safety glazing material and presents a possible danger (presumably to anyone using the tub). It is then the decision of the client, NOT THE HI, as to whether they need it replaced or not. They (clients) maybe satisfied with some alternative remedial action such as an overlay or simply be prepared to live with the defect/danger. If the client wanted further 'ammunition' regarding the defect, pursuant to further negotiations, then I would provide applicable code requirements in support of my observations.

Suggesting/recommending the window is in NEED of replacement, when it appears newer and presumably perfectly operable, IMO, oversteps the bounds of the HIs responsibility when more appropriate language and alternative remedies are available.

It seems to me yes it needs to be replaced however making it into a big deal for the home owner and possible deal killer is not the way to go. I would advise the buyer yes to replace it as one of the small things that they would want to improve apon in the house for their safety. yes advise them the dangers but don't make it into a mountain that is more than what it is. imo there are bigger things in the big picture that are more important to consider.

Unless doing a code inspection then the code becomes a reference to support your determination about what you observe and how it may effect the client in the future. Such as safety glass in window. To code not to code not underlying issue. The issue is that the glass is a potential hazard under certain circumstances. The client should be made aware of the potential hazard. It is part of CYA for HI. You do not want the client coming back on HI for not pointing the hazard out. The rest is just negotiations. Anyone can ask/demand/offer anything in the contract.

A 55 Chevy has no seat belts or air bags. Safety hazard yes. Required in 1955 no. Buy it or not. Put in seat belts/airbags or not, buyers option. Drive it or not. Buyers decision to accept potential risks, yes. Buyers option to do what they want with house once they buy it.

The agents are the ones mucking things up. Buyer agent is letting the buyer fixate on one issue. The seller agent is trying to act tough. In the old days, 70's, you looked at the property made a determination as to value based on comps and repairs or alterations that the buyer would have to make and then just make a dollar offer. We basically negotiated over dollar amounts The negotiating of seller making repairs or alterations in a new age occurrence. Personally think it is better for the buyer to do the repairs/alterations and be in control of the process rather than have the seller do it.

The seller can make repairs/alterations and control the costs involved. As a buyer who is looking at repairs/alterations, there is a added premium for the buyer having to deal with it. Ultimately the seller looses less by making any repair/alteration prior to sale. But that is not concern of the HI.

You were right to point out the potential hazard. You could demonstrate evidence that supported your opinion of the potential hazard. The fact people do not like what you said in the report, so sad to bad. You are not trying to enforce code, only support your position. It sounds like you did it right. My only suggestion is possibly how you worded your observation. 1st observation, 2nd opinion about observation, 3rd if requested offer evidence to support your opinion (but only if requested).

Originally Posted by neil anderson

I have read this site since I started inspecting 5 years ago and not posted before. It has been an interesting and educational site that I enjoy reading.

I ran into a situation yesterday that I am interested in your feedback. My reputation locally is that my inspections are "very comprehensive" meaning that some local realtors will only use my services when they are buying for themselves. The realtors involved were quick to point out that no one else has ever seen much less called out this recommendation.

The inspection was a remodeled 1960's home. The remodel was actually pretty good, even the electrical rewire. New windows were installed all around the home. Nice windows: low e, gas filled, double pane, actually fit... There is a 2x3 window about 36" from the bottom of the bath tub that is not safety glazed. No sign of any etching anywhere.

As mentioned in several previous threads on this site, IRC 308.4.5 requires safety glazing when

5. Glazing in doors and enclosures for hot tubs, whirlpools, saunas, steam rooms, bathtubs and showers. Glazing in any part of a building wall enclosing these compartments where the bottom exposed edge of the glazing is less than 60 inches (1524 mm) measured vertically above any standing or walking surface.

The realtor called and told me the deal was coming apart because my client wants the safety glaze in the bathtub wall. The selling realtor sez: this is BS, never heard of it and won't agree. My client, according to her realtor, won't budge because she has so much confidence in me (yeah!).

I faxed her realtor the page from the IRC to use as reference. The local AHJ agreed with my position and indicates they inspect all window replacement installations. I also gave the realtor the name of the AHJ for additional support.

Reportedly, no one in the either agents' agency has ever heard of such a requirement. The buyers agent had called a local appraiser who is the reported authority for VA and FHA who indicates the safety glazing would not required on 1960's era home.

Even though I have taken an intensive IRC class, I don't do code inspections on general home inspections. I do call out safety hazards when noted. This is a safety hazard in my mind and I intend to stand my ground. More importantly, this is labeled as a hazardous condition in the IRC.

Of course, I am the only inspector in the dozen or so operating in the area who has ever had the temerity to recommend safety glazing installation in a bathtub wall in an older home. My question to you all is "in the real world of inspecting, do you call this out during your inspections?"

I always call this out for safety reasons.

Originally Posted by Ian Page

Suggesting/recommending the window is in NEED of replacement, when it appears newer and presumably perfectly operable, IMO, oversteps the bounds of the HIs responsibility when more appropriate language and alternative remedies are available.

Ian,

The window *is* in NEED of replacement, and, yes, the window *should* be replaced, and, no, it is not overstepping the bounds of the HIs responsibility to call it out, in fact, it is withholding critical and pertinent information if the HI does not write it up.

You seem to only be addressing one aspect of the window with your statement of "when it appears newer and presumably perfectly operable" - that is that the window can be opened.

Being "openable" is only one aspect of being *operable* (meaning that for the window to be 'operating is intended' includes the need for the window to be safety glass.

That being able to be 'operated', i.e., 'opened', is only one of the functions of that window. Other functions of the window are: allow in light, ventilation (if openable), not cause serious injury (be safety glass), etc.

First off, I wouldn't necessarily believe the realtors when they say they have never heard of it. Possible but who knows. If they are recommending checkbox guys then it is entirely possible.
I run into this a lot and realtors get mad about it. If the house, especially the bathroom or windows, has been remodeled, then YES the window should have been replaced with a tempered window.
Figure 200-300 for the window, a few hundred for the install. Not that big a cost. There could be other issues.
Without getting into more about the Code, the other issue from an HI perspective is protecting your client and yourself. If little Bobby breaks the window and slices his arm to shreds who do you think the attorney is going to call first?
A lot of Seller's have a hard time seeing the danger in things they've come used to living with. I believe there is much greater danger for a Buyer coming into a new unfamiliar house than a current owner. The Seller is used to X. The Buyer isn't. They don't know how slippery that tub is, how stable that window is, or the quirks of that staircase.
I've had clients trip on off measurement top or bottom stairs during inspections. Does the Seller trip on those stairs? Probably not for a long time, they know the stairs.
Besides doing the HI, part of our job should be to protect our clients from the things they don't know about. You made a good call.

Jerry
Operable/schmoperable - I was merely assuming from the original poster's comments that the windows throughout were newer and this window had also been replaced. Under those circumstances I would not expect that an old/defective/non-functioning window was installed as a replacement but simply just the wrong type of glazing used.

The 'Need' issue is debateable, 'Should' issue is not. Of course the defect should be pointed out and explained (as I made clear in my post). It's your use of "...need..." by way of addressing the resolution is what I have conflict with. Personally, I would not write up my findings using that language and choose my defect descriptions carefully. Inflamatory wording is not helpful in an inspection report (unless the issues are as previoulsy identified in my prior post). Perhaps you would...to each his/her own.

ip

Neil,
"Reportedly, no one in the either agents' agency has ever heard of such a requirement. The buyers agent had called a local appraiser who is the reported authority for VA and FHA who indicates the safety glazing would not required on 1960's era home."

The Realtor either did not ask the right question, they are only stating part of the response to the question (lies) or only hear what they wanted to hear. How about anti-tip device for stove replaced in 2006, not required? What would the reported VA/FHA authority say to cover their but when dragged to court after there was an accident? Not to mention the liability of the Realtor for making the professional informed determination as to the status of the window?

Referring to "selling realtor sez: this is BS, never heard of it and won't agree", I have only met one or two Realtor's that have the credentials for me to take any opinion they offered seriously. I have met many that will question what they see and want understand cause and consequence. So, Neil, ignore the Realtor just so much blather. Or attempt to teach the idiot something, ever so nicely as to not hurt their sensibility and ego (good luck on that). Liability may get their attention.

Not knowing your location Neil. Options to correct in MD: 1)replace window unit @$400-$600, 2) replace glazing @$200-$300, 3) install Plexiglas over Interior sashes @ $150-$250.

This entire issue of reporting boils down to wording. I do not think that there is anyone seeing a new window (recent replacement) that should have safety glazing and does not have any markings should be brought to the attention of the client in the written report. I take issue as does Ian that the report should be written so that the report is not demanding something be preformed unless there is immediate imminent danger which should be included in the report, verbally presented to the client, property owner and all those present at the time of the inspection follow up with a certified letter to the property owner describing the danger present at the time of the inspection. The major problem is that many people interpret the word "needs" as synonymous with "must". As in finding a Fed Pac panel which has a history of issues though never technically and formally recalled. I am a believer of informing and explaining what is found. I also believe that the ultimate decision is that of the client just like the decision to buy a car seat belts or air bags (of varying numbers).

If the window was original and there had not been any remodling preformed to the house since its construction in 1960, thus code compliant, which negates the incorrect installation issue. Informing the client as to the present thinking regarding safety glazing application should be done and their options proffered. Leaving the decision of how to proceed to the client.

I understand on a first hand basis as to the hazards of glass and what happens when it breaks. But I also believe that being a zealot on code issues is wrong. I accept the need to create parameters for safe construction and use for what is produced, but I also feel that people have a responsibility for their choices, lives and actions.


I will now duck. Not interested in a fight just a discussion & exchange. Where is H.G.W.?

"But I also believe that being a zealot on code issues is wrong"
Wow, that's pretty scary. You don't believe in being zealous about whether something at the very least meets the minimum crappiest construction requirements allowed by law/ordinance?
So then why care about any other factors within a home. Why care whether equipment is installed per manufacturer instructions.
I find it interesting and disturbing that the last two posters seem to be shying away from reporting such a potential hazard in any meaningful way that a client would understand.
If people misinterpret 'should' as 'must' that is their issue, not the inspectors. Defects in my report are listed two ways:
Defect:
Recommend:

Dangerous and Hazardous defect:
Recommend:
Frankly I don't care whether people fix anything or not. However I will not under report just not to upset the poor realtors. I wrote up a new set of stairs in a Condo recently as D&H. Realtor was horrified. Stringers were attached to wall framing with drywall screws. I explained to the client the stairs probably won't collapse under normal conditions. Get a couple of big guys moving heavy furniture, who knows. Like this situation, its a fairly easy fix. RE also wasn't happy that I wrote up the 3rd 'bedroom' for insufficient light and vent.

Markus
I assume that your reference to "...the last two posters..." refererred to me as being one of them. NOWHERE in my post(s) did I advocate under-reporting the observed defect - in this case a non-safety glazed window. Please re-read them. At risk of repetition, my only concern is in Jerry's use of the word 'need' (to be replaced) as a resolutive measure, and the use of that word in an inspection report. In no way would I underestimate, under-report or under-rate hazardous issues, that would be foolish. However, I am also not an alarmist and recognize that what are safety issues for me, may not be such a big deal for someone else. I therefore put the clients view in perspective by identifying the defect (sometimes with code support, frequently with common sense) and leaving the decision to replace, repair or remain, with the them - as it should be.

Codes rarely, if ever, references the word 'need' (as a requirement for change or upgrade). 'Should' however, is a much used verb and I use it often.
ip

Originally Posted by Ian Page

Jerry
Operable/schmoperable - I was merely assuming from the original poster's comments that the windows throughout were newer and this window had also been replaced.

Same presumption I have.

The 'Need' issue is debateable, 'Should' issue is not.

It "needs" to be replaced without question, and, yes, it "should" be replaced - because it needs to be replaced.

It's your use of "...need..." by way of addressing the resolution is what I have conflict with.

Not sure why you have a conflict with saying that the window "needs" to be replaced as it is much less safe with non-safety glass next to the tub than with the required safety glass there.

That glass "needs" to be replaced to correct the condition.

"Should" someone replace that glass which "needs" to be replaced? Sure, absolutely.

If you were talking about a receptacle outlet next to the sink ... you would agree that that receptacle outlet "needs" to have GFCI protection - right? And you would also agree that someone "should" install that GFCI protection - right?

Jerry

Re. your kitchen GFCI scenario. My report recommendation would simply say (to the effect of)..."Existing kitchen outlet is potentially hazardous and SHOULD be GFCI protected pursuant to current code requirements." I'll let the buyer determine on his/her own whether they NEED it replaced or not. As long as I identify the prevailing defect, I see no reason to go further - unless the client wishes to know the specific code for their own edification and/or in support of further negotiation. In which case I supply that.

IMO and experience, dictating remedial action in the report often causes sticky issues - unless the issue is obvious and/or presents an immediate danger. The rationale being is that there is generally more than one way to skin the proverbial cat and I'll let the seller and buyer decide between themselves how they can satisfy each other's needs. I just don't want to get in between the..."Look at the report, my Inspector says that this window (GFCI) does not comply with code, is a safety issue and must (needs to) be replaced..." and...."Well MY contractor says it's perfectly legal...I ain't payin' for it, so screw you...and your Inspector" kind of argument.

Now if the client/buyer asks me what the reparation entails then I may verbally elaborate, perhaps drawing from first-hand knowledge, but that explanation wouldn't necessarily appear in the report.

It may seem semantics to many but a careful use of words, phrasing or terminology is extremely important, as you surely know, in legal documents or settings.

ip

Originally Posted by Ian Page

It may seem semantics to many but a careful use of words, phrasing or terminology is extremely important, as you surely know, in legal documents or settings.

That is correct, semantics is extremely important, which is why that glazing NEEDS to be replaced.

Saying that it NEEDS to be replaced does not commit anyone to replace it (although it should), but it DOES show that you know, and that you advised your client, and everyone else for that matter, that it NEEDS to be replaced.

Neither the buyer nor the seller decides on what NEEDS to be done, they only decide on who, if anyone, does it.

You are standing in front of a firing squad, all of the executioners have just pulled their triggers ... you NEED ... yes, NEED ... something to stop those bullets from reaching you ... and you NEED it pretty dang quickly.

Get the difference and why NEED *IS* the correct word to use when stating that that glazing NEEDS to be replaced with safety glass.

Should you use "Need", or do you need to use "Should,
that is the question.

How about if you just say "Replace the glass for increased safety."

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

That is correct, semantics is extremely important, which is why that glazing NEEDS to be replaced.

Saying that it NEEDS to be replaced does not commit anyone to replace it (although it should), but it DOES show that you know, and that you advised your client, and everyone else for that matter, that it NEEDS to be replaced.

Neither the buyer nor the seller decides on what NEEDS to be done, they only decide on who, if anyone, does it.

You are standing in front of a firing squad, all of the executioners have just pulled their triggers ... you NEED ... yes, NEED ... something to stop those bullets from reaching you ... and you NEED it pretty dang quickly.

Get the difference and why NEED *IS* the correct word to use when stating that that glazing NEEDS to be replaced with safety glass.

What if you are willing to ,1) let the bullets hit you, 2) hope that the bullets will miss you, 3) think that you could dodge the bullets.

Originally Posted by Rick Cantrell

Should you use "Need", or do you need to use "Should, that is the question.

EXCELLENT, Rick.

Originally Posted by Garry Sorrells

What if you are willing to ,1) let the bullets hit you, 2) hope that the bullets will miss you, 3) think that you could dodge the bullets.

Gary,

We have been, at least to my presumption, been discussing what sane people would do, however, if we are going to discuss what insane people might do ... then what is you fired the shots yourself and were trying to kill yourself?

Sorry Jerry - just can't let this go (probably why I was Captain of my H.S. Debate Team).

IMO your use of 'Need', implies an immediate and inherent danger. However, I see the lack of safety glazing as just that, a deficiency. No argument that it is a danger but only a potential one. In and of itself, the glass is whole, intact and and without breaking, does not cross the threshold of actively being dangerous. Kind of like a hand-gun - not dangerous until it's loaded, pointed at someone and the trigger pulled (Not quite correct but I'm sure you get the correlation).

Do all high-wire safety acts need safety nets? From the audience point of view, probably yes. From aerialist's pov - only if he/she wants one. They may be prepared to assume the risk of performing without. Should safety nets therefore, be mandated or merely suggested? Only if the aerialist agrees to have or desires the net, is there a 'need' for it to be installed by someone.

By including the word 'need' in your context we, as HIs, are usurping the client's right to choose. We obviously have differing use of the word (need - and it's use). It's just not a term I would typically use in a report for the aforementioned reasons.

ip

Blah, Blah, Blah, what a bunch of F'en nonsense. This is what you want to debate. What a joke.
I NEED a raspberry filled chocolate cupcake. No inherent danger that I am aware of and I still have the choice of whether or not to drive to the other side of town to get it.
Whenever an HI talks about not using inflammatory language or not being zealous etc, that sounds just like realtor speak. Sounds like a guy who is in realtors pockets and relies on them for his business. It's the same language realtors like to spit out to minimize everything possible.
My guess is you are hammering at this so hard because you're remembering all the bathroom windows you didn't write up and are pissing your pants. If you can make the argument successfully on IN maybe you can print out the thread and present it in court to save your _ss after little johnny slices his arm open on that potential hazard.
Start doing real inspections with meaningful reports instead trying to hide behind your perceived excellence in word play.

Should or Need
This is an interesting debate, so I have done a little reading on it.

Need is described as; being necessary
Something that is “without” is therefore “in need of”.
“In need of” = inadequacy, wanting, deficiency

Should is described as; required, mandated, obligatory.
A synonym for should is “must”.

Since the window does not have safety glass, it is in a condition of need.
What it “needs” is safety glass. Whether it is for code, safety, or whatever.
The inspector is describing a condition that is in need.
To satisfy the condition in need, the window (or glass) should be replaced.
Saying, “should be replaced” is describing what must be done in order to satisfy the need.

Sooooo
The window needs to be safety glass, and should be replaced by a qualified and competent…


In this way, the inspector has met the obligations to:
Inform the client of a condition “in need” (defect, deficiency).
Recommend what it will take to correct the condition (need).
And, recommend who should correct the condition.

Just my opinion
Thanks

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

EXCELLENT, Rick.



Gary,

We have been, at least to my presumption, been discussing what sane people would do, however, if we are going to discuss what insane people might do ... then what is you fired the shots yourself and were trying to kill yourself?

Then that would be a one man Firing Squad, wouldn't it?

Originally Posted by neil anderson

There is a 2x3 window about 36" from the bottom of the bath tub that is not safety glazed. No sign of any etching anywhere.

Was it obscure? What does the existing female homeowner look like? What does the potential female buyer look like?

Determining the above would be what I would recommend. Ugly existing homeowner......not obscure.....deal falls through....but need to replace with obscure glass.

Good looking potential home owner.....not obscure.....leave it alone!!!! (Mental note.....remember address)

The best way to handle this is to make a report with; window appears not to be safety glass.
I would recommend a certified window company look at this for your safety.

Originally Posted by Markus Keller

Blah, Blah, Blah, what a bunch of F'en nonsense. This is what you want to debate. What a joke.
I NEED a raspberry filled chocolate cupcake. No inherent danger that I am aware of and I still have the choice of whether or not to drive to the other side of town to get it.
Whenever an HI talks about not using inflammatory language or not being zealous etc, that sounds just like realtor speak. Sounds like a guy who is in realtors pockets and relies on them for his business. It's the same language realtors like to spit out to minimize everything possible.
My guess is you are hammering at this so hard because you're remembering all the bathroom windows you didn't write up and are pissing your pants. If you can make the argument successfully on IN maybe you can print out the thread and present it in court to save your _ss after little johnny slices his arm open on that potential hazard.
Start doing real inspections with meaningful reports instead trying to hide behind your perceived excellence in word play.

Markus,
some more "Blah, Blah, what a bunch of F'en nonsense".

'This is what you want to debate. What a joke." --- and yes we need some humor in our lives.

Raspberry filled chocolate cupcake ----- Dangerous, increase cholesterol, vascular blockage, death.

Driving to other side of town - Dangerous, if does not have side curtain air bags.

Realtor speak, no. In the Realtor pocket, no. Relies on Realtor business, no.

"Whenever an HI talks about not using inflammatory language or not being zealous etc, that sounds just like realtor speak."

I did not use the term "inflammatory language" , please do not put words in my mouth. I have a hard enough time without help.

"It's the same language realtors like to spit out to minimize everything possible."

Actually no, I would never recommend that anything a Realtor said be taken at face value. Realtor are sales people selling a product (for the most part). They want the sale and will not discourage the buyer (with some exceptions). If the Realtor puts it in writing and then is willing to stand by it in court and be liable for the outcome. Then maybe listen a little, but still be wary. I know of what I speak. Many decades ago I carried a Real Estate Lic.. I dealt mostly in commercial arena, limited residential. Residential clients had a hard time accepting truth and facts. I worked with Brokers that would allow me to be direct and truthful with the client even if that meant losing the client (which is very unusual in the industry). Quite litterly they could not handle the truth". So much for a little background.

Zealous about code is that some HI sound like Mike Homes (may be sorry to bring up name) spouting off every which way for effect and ego. Not saying that code is dad or should be ignored. If you want to write inspection reports listing and enumerating all code variances you most certainly have the right, and all the power to you to do so, but don't pick and choose which ones go for the gusto an enumerate all.

"My guess is you are hammering at this so hard because you're remembering all the bathroom windows you didn't write up and are pissing your pants."

The answer to that is no. Miss things, it happens we are human and it just happens. Am I perfect, no. Do I worry about what I have missed? No I do not. I have had to rebuild, replace, reconstruct and alter so much that has been done wrong that I look at everything with a jaded eye. One client has refereed to me as an "Eor" form Christopher Robin stories. Because I can envision all of the potential problems and methods used during construction, and how they may effect the client that it is easy to depress them when told of the total scope of what may be ahead for them.. It is the what if game at times. Not done to scare just to educate and inform. Bathroom windows are a no brainer, it should be so easy.


"My guess is you are hammering at this so hard because you're remembering all the bathroom windows you didn't write up and are pissing your pants. If you can make the argument successfully on IN maybe you can print out the thread and present it in court to save your _ss after little johnny slices his arm open on that potential hazard.
Start doing real inspections with meaningful reports instead trying to hide behind your perceived excellence in word play.[/quote"

I hope that I am not hammering, not intended, maybe expounding (possibly to much). The occurrence of an accident, should I not have explained the potential hazard of something to the client, would be of concern since I would have failed at my task. If an accident did occur with an informed client that chose not to correct a potential hazard, I would not feel responsible for their choice. The key is their choice.

I have seen first hand , my college roommate when he was 7, what happens when a kid runs through a patio door that is not tempered. It looked like he had gone through a meat grinder. I have a real respect for glass. Have come close to being hurt real bad many times.

This medium and conveyance offers an opportunity to quibble over things and attempt to understand how others relate to different ideas and situations. Much better than reading "The Inquirer" at the check out. Words convey many things and the HI is in the world of words as much as anything else. How things are expressed are all about our views and opinions. We are all different and express ourselves in various ways.

The original point of all of this was that of the necessity of replacing glass that is a greater hazard due to its location. I do not think that there is an argument that the glass presents a heightened hazard. Furthermore, I do not believe that there is an argument that it would be wise to replace the glass if the client wants to mitigate the potential hazard.

My problem may be that the inspection report are being used for leverage by buyers to make correction to the seller's properties that they have lived with possible for decades and have had no problems. Buyers seem to be of a mind things must be perfect, a new age. Also agents have created the a situation that almost requires the seller to make repairs to a property since the buyer is going into the deal over extended with no cash reserves. Some to the point that the buyer is one payment from forclosure should anything detrimental happen. Agents are facilitating the buyers to be put in a precarious position for the sake of the commission and the sale.

Not to be to philosphical, but maybe its all about self determination. A discussion for another day.Oh, and markus if you have gotten to this point and are agitated or upset the joke may be on you. If you are in good humor then I hope you day continues to go well.

Where is H.G.W?? Must be on a cruise.

Originally Posted by keithsines

There is a product available that is a clear plastic overlay that can be installed to give it a degree of safety. I no longer remember the name of the product but if the seller, buyer or whoever, would check with the neighborhood window repair store they may be able to help you find it. If I recall it was used at the Pentagon on their windows after 911 to help prevent shards of flying glass. Hope this helps.
Keith

The product is a "safety" window film ( I use to do this work) and you would use a window tinting company for the install. It is a very thick, 2-10 mil, film with a very aggressive adhesive to bond it to the glass. Then this film can be bonded to the frame of the window with clear silicone to give a safety level (IMHO) that would exceed tempered glass. However, in my experience, the silicone should not be necessary as the frame of the window will be so close to the window film no broken glass will escape and the bond of the glass to the aluminum window spacer will hold the glass in the frame. The glass will not be as strong as tempered (safety) glass (tempered glass is 4 times as strong as annealed, normal strength glass), however if the glazing does get broken, there will be ZERO shards of glass released to be stepped upon by the person in the shower. While this does not solve the CODE issue IMO it would be safe. They use this stuff for bomb blast protection to hold the windows in place! Price is dependent upon area and installer but would be about $100-$150 in the Midwest area.

This brings me to a question about the windows in my house. I have some double-hungs I want to replace that go to within about 8" of the floor. Do BOTH panes need to be safety or just the pane closest to the ground? Does size of pane matter in the code? Tempered (safety) glass basically doubles the price of the windows.

Hope this helps....

Depends....if the area of the pane isn't more than 9 square feet no protection is needed. Or if it is listed as one of the "other" hazardous locations.

(bold and underlining are mine)

Originally Posted by neil anderson

There is a 2x3 window about 36" from the bottom of the bath tub that is not safety glazed. No sign of any etching anywhere.

Originally Posted by Wayne Carlisle

Depends....if the area of the pane isn't more than 9 square feet no protection is needed. Or if it is listed as one of the "other" hazardous locations.

5. Glazing in doors and enclosures for hot tubs, whirlpools, saunas, steam rooms, bathtubs and showers. Glazing in any part of a building wall enclosing these compartments where the bottom exposed edge of the glazing is less than 60 inches (1524 mm) measured vertically above any standing or walking surface.

As soon as the word "bathtub" comes into play ... there is NO requirement for 9 sq ft or anything else other than if the glazing is within 60" vertically of the bottom of the bathtub (or shower, etc.).

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

(bold and underlining are mine)

5. Glazing in doors and enclosures for hot tubs, whirlpools, saunas, steam rooms, bathtubs and showers. Glazing in any part of a building wall enclosing these compartments where the bottom exposed edge of the glazing is less than 60 inches (1524 mm) measured vertically above any standing or walking surface.

As soon as the word "bathtub" comes into play ... there is NO requirement for 9 sq ft or anything else other than if the glazing is within 60" vertically of the bottom of the bathtub (or shower, etc.).

Bathtub is not applicable in my situation it is in a living room.

Originally Posted by David W

Bathtub is not applicable in my situation it is in a living room.

I thought Wayne was responding to the original post.

I avoided responding to your post as it included this:

Originally Posted by David W

The product is a "safety" window film ...

... and that window film is no substitute for safety glass when safety glass is required.

Many "companies" (i.e., installers) used to try to sell that stuff as "impact resistant" and that they could apply it to windows and make them "impact resistant" and avoid having to have impact resistant windows or shutters installed (this was down in South Florida at the time, now "opening protection" is required all around Florida where the wind speed chart shows a wind speed of 120 mph and within 1 mile of the coast of the other areas - the very few other areas there are).

However, now that I have gone there, we now have this:

This brings me to a question about the windows in my house. I have some double-hungs I want to replace that go to within about 8" of the floor. Do BOTH panes need to be safety or just the pane closest to the ground? Does size of pane matter in the code? Tempered (safety) glass basically doubles the price of the windows

To which Wayne's comment regarding 9 sq ft does apply. If those were smaller than 9 sq ft, those would not require safety glass in either unless some other factor came into play, such as the window was within 24" of a door, and other factors.

R308.4 is straightforward in a confusing kind of way, or, should I say, it is confusing in a straightforward kind of way.

It is beyond reason that any home inspector with any experience or general knowledge of our industry would argue against stating untempered glazing in, around or adjacent to a shower/ tub area would NOT advise that such a condition constituted a safety hazard to occupants no matter when the home was built and advise accordingly.
Who cares what the listing or buyer's agent thinks or says???

Garry - I think Markus' angered post was directed more toward me and my posts. Nevertheless, I fundamentally agree with your observations and opinions. Markus, it seems, does not fully appreciate the value of words, especially those used in a written reporting context. His post infers the bigger picture is also illusive to him. A few days in court, with a zealous attorney hammering away over what was written in the report and parsing every single sentence, would probably change his mind as to the value of words and their relevance ....Been there, done that. "... It all depends on what your definition of the word 'is' is..." Sound familiar?

ip

Ian,
Now we can go to debating "is". Now that really sucks

Angry post? No not angry just bashing any of you for wanting to quibble on about if and how to report such an condition. Whether to report such a condition should not be a discussion at all. Report, report hard and heavy. You can assume all the smack you want Ian but I've spent thousands of hours in court testifying on behalf of my clients. I've only been beaten once and I knew it was going to happen. Told counsel it was a **** case and we would lose. Counsel wanted to proceed anyway. Got my ass kicked in open court. Vowed it would never happen again and it hasn't. The same attorney even came after me a few more times on other cases and I whupped his _ss all over that court room.
Write what you see and write it hard. None of that wishy-washy BS. That's the stuff that will get you a loss in court. Your little parsing word games won't save your _ss in court.
My 3 unit HI from yesterday, I'm writing up today as a recommendation for tear down based on structural deficiencies. Buyer knows it. Seller will probably freak, but I'm sure they already have suspicions. The place is POS.
You are right in that realtors put uneducated buyers in tough spots. That's why we need to combat that ignorance with education. Educating our clients to the risks protects them for the BS they get sold.

delete

Originally Posted by Markus Keller

Angry post? No not angry just bashing any of you for wanting to quibble on about if and how to report such an condition. Whether to report such a condition should not be a discussion at all. Report, report hard and heavy. You can assume all the smack you want Ian but I've spent thousands of hours in court testifying on behalf of my clients. I've only been beaten once and I knew it was going to happen. Told counsel it was a **** case and we would lose. Counsel wanted to proceed anyway. Got my ass kicked in open court. Vowed it would never happen again and it hasn't. The same attorney even came after me a few more times on other cases and I whupped his _ss all over that court room.
Write what you see and write it hard. None of that wishy-washy BS. That's the stuff that will get you a loss in court. Your little parsing word games won't save your _ss in court.
My 3 unit HI from yesterday, I'm writing up today as a recommendation for tear down based on structural deficiencies. Buyer knows it. Seller will probably freak, but I'm sure they already have suspicions. The place is POS.
You are right in that realtors put uneducated buyers in tough spots. That's why we need to combat that ignorance with education. Educating our clients to the risks protects them for the BS they get sold.

Markus, It's interesting how often you have been in court and how one lawyer has come after you several times. I can see how some you be on edge. It would be really informative to hear of the cases and their basis in detail. Also the the defense offered. This is an area that many would benefit from your experiences. You should start a thread on your legal experiences. I for one would like to follow it. Please send me a heads up when you do. Thanks in advance.

Years in housing court and administrative hearings working both sides of the aisle. The cast of characters is somewhat constant in both venues so it is common to go up against each other repeatedly over the years.

Originally Posted by Markus Keller

Years in housing court and administrative hearings working both sides of the aisle. The cast of characters is somewhat constant in both venues so it is common to go up against each other repeatedly over the years.

That is why it would be interesting. Especially why they were after you.

After me? Nobody after me except opposing counsel as they should be. You cast your feeble bait in the wrong waters. My experience is in assisting counsel in defending our clients position and taking down the bad guys. Very satisfying work. Your immaturity assumes too much little grasshopper.

Mr. Keller's pronouncements about his ability in the court room is the type of profound over-the-top egocentric posturing that keeps me from being more active on this venue and I’m quite certain others that come here to learn and share must also be equally turned off. God knows I have learned over the years to be patient with characters like him, but I don't recall ever hearing such blustering nonsense as what he so easily spews on this basically valuable bulletin board.

Tsk, Tsk, Jerry
My only concern on this thread is that people write the window. Don't discuss it, sugar coat it, rationalize some verbiage nonsense or anything else.
Write the window, protect the client. The rest is all BS.
I consider myself pretty damn average in life Jerry. But there are a couple things I'm pretty darn good at. Hammering slumlords, fraudsters and slimeballs for endangering building occupants, that's something I've very good at. As you seem to be based on your posts I've read.

I've no argument with that statement Markus and in my experience there is no shortage of those type of individuals.

Markus,
You mad the statement:
...."....Told counsel it was a **** case and we would lose. Counsel wanted to proceed anyway. Got my ass kicked in open court. Vowed it would never happen again and it hasn't. The same attorney even came after me a few more times on other cases and I whupped his _ss all over that court room...."

Cast bait, no, more like chum. Let the critters come to me. You seemed to rise to the bait. Thanks.

I was just curious how big your ego was, thus my chumming. You blow off making irrational statements and accusations without a meaningful foundation. Speaking of ...'"Blah, Blah,"...

Making demeaning comments says a lot about you. Which was really what I was after. I find it interesting and insightful to understand who the person is behind their comments.

As time passes in this medium I gather respect and understanding for many that respond to the postings. I also gather an understand of who has a difficult time in civil discourse.

To take you back to the discussion and away from yourself.
The discussion, was not about failure to report, not the potential danger posed, but on how to report and the words used in that reporting mechanism.

I feel you would say/think that the seller must replace the glazing immediately and if not replaced immediately (sale or no sale) some governmental authority should come in and force the correction then fine the owner and through the owner in jail. (PS a flogging may also be in order )

-----

Jerry M. :-) Like most dark clouds they will pass quickly and the sun will come out. Without the dark clouds we can not appreciate the rays of sunsine brought by others.

Garry...I second that emotion...

Markus. I am all for protecting the client. I am even more for protecting me. An inappropriate word, missed punctuation, improper use of grammar and poor spelling are all reasons why the report would be examined closely and de-facto, why the inspection itself would / could be called into question.

Yes, I do go about my business with a very cautionary eye as to what I write in reports. Calling it 'sugar coating' or 'rationalization' is obviously coming from someone who has little or no concept of negotiation, mediation, facilitation or just plain business acumen. Home Inspection (call it what you will) is not an Us Vs. Them profession. Your post(s) indicate that is the manner in which you conduct your business. I choose an alternate approach, being mindful of the people I am engaged by.

You are clearly much better at doing what you do, in your mind, than I or Garry - or anyone else who may disagree with you - so good luck with your future endeavours. You have clearly 'bettered' at least one attorney, who is probably now a whimpering shadow of his former self and running to the woods each and every time your name is mentioned.


ip

Of course, there is always the ASHI answer:


5.3 The inspector is NOT required to observe:


C. safety glazing.