Looking for an opinion on openings in this guardrail. The top and bottom of the vertical balusters meet the 4 inch requirement however, the center area is about 5 inches.

Attached Images

DSCN4232.JPG (113.9 KB, 79 views)

__________________
Greg Jenkins

IRC doesn't specify top, bottom, whatever. Just says you shouldn't be able to pass a 4 inch sphere between rails.

what year was it built? may have been legal!

Since there is fear of a small child getting stuck between them, I would assume 4" at the widest point.

So just make sure to pass the sphere at the top and bottom.

__________________
Brian K Doles
www.colbyinspections.com
Atlanta Home Inspection Provider

8 year old 460k house. No building inspectors. Multiple problems. Sure is a shame.

__________________
Greg Jenkins

From the 2006 IRC, and it's been this way in most codes for a long time. (underlining is mine)

- R312.2 Guard opening limitations.

- - Exceptions:

- - - 1. The triangular openings formed by the riser, tread and bottom rail of a guard at the open side of a stairway are permitted to be of such a size that a sphere 6 inches (152 mm) cannot pass through.
- - - 2. Openings for required guards on the sides of stair treads shall not allow a sphere 4

That means ANYWHERE from the bottom to the top of the guard railing.

Most have seen "ornamental" railings which do not even have vertical balusters, just a ornamental in-fill design ... ANYWHERE in the in-fill panel (whether balusters or otherwise).

Brian,

"may have been legal!"

And that is going to stop a small child from getting caught and killed ... how!?!

When that client's attorney sends a fat letter including you in the lawsuit resulting from a 'the foreseeable death' of their small child, you will then find out what "legal" means. As in 'You are "legally responsible" in part for the death of that child.'

__________________
Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )

jerry,
get over yourself and your attorney. if it was legally installed and maintained in good condition then it continues to be legal.i would love to defend that in court. where do you stop your crusade for what should be acceptable? you been hitting the herbs again?

I've got to side with Jerry on this one. Whether or not it was or was not " legal " at some earlier time, that will not bring back a lost child. Always eer on the side of safety.

Jerry P is absolutely correct as a more than 4" wide opening may allow a child's body through but not their head. Kid hangs there and strangles. There's a dam good reason for that code.
Now, can anybody tell me why the spacing at the stair balusters allows a 4-3/8 inch opening? There are two basic stories and I've already chosen the one that makes the most sense to my alleged mind.

__________________
Jerry McCarthy
Construction Consultant
www.expertbuildingconsultants.com

jerry,
i have the job of enforcing the code as written without the option of enforcing what others may feel are "good ideas" or what is safer.code changes like requiring everything to be retrofitted are good ideas but public outrage would be a bitch to say the least. enter the lawyers and expert witnesses and then a code change.
the 4 3/8" is to allow for equal spacing of balusters on a standard stair run. 2 balusters per tread, or the extra 3/8 for kids with bigger heads to be able to enjoy putting their heads thru.

Thanks Brian and the lot of a jurisdictional inspector is not always a smooth or happy one when you take into consideration the politics often involved and/or unqualified BOs.
Your 4-3/8" inch layout for the stair run is an old one, but I've heard a new one. Anyone care to volunteer an opinion?

__________________
Jerry McCarthy
Construction Consultant
www.expertbuildingconsultants.com

"Enforcing code"?

Okay, that means you must be a "code enforcement inspector"?

Is so, shouldn't you be enforcing the currently applicable code?

As a "home inspector", though, those "opinions" are precisely what you are hired to provide.

The main story I hear is that it is to allow the use of two balusters per tread instead of requiring three balusters per tread. However, that logic does not make sense to me as there is no 'minimum' baluster size. Thus, one could use 1/4" steel dowel balusters, two per tread, and exceed the 4-3/8" allowed.

That said, though, the rest of that reason to allow 4-3/8" on the sides of stairs is that an infant small enough to slip through the 4-3/8" would most likely NOT be crawling down the stairs (they would, instead, presumably tumble down the stairs end-over-end I guess), thus any child big enough to navigate climbing the stairs would be large enough to not fit through a 4-3/8" opening.

Added with edit: by the time I was through typing after answering the phone, you posed you question about hearing a new reason ... what is that new reason?

__________________
Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )

I am so glad I could start a spirited discussion.

__________________
Greg Jenkins

jp,
busted me. i'm an ahj,hi,si,builder 25 years, many in jm's area. i would call the over 4" spacing on op's post since the house is only 8 years old.i believe the 4"rule was adopted in the1991 code from 6" and 12" before that.i enforce the current code or the code that was in effect the day the application is submitted. in calif all building depts had a deluge of plans submitted on dec 31st in order to beat the new icc codes that were adopted jan 1st. the laws regarding types of exterior wall finishes and tempered glass for all windows went into effect in some fire zones as designated by the state fire marshall. so jerry m. would you require all openings and wall finishes to comply with new laws on existing homes? it,s a good idea but at $20,000 or more per house you might get an earful! it could save lives too! ban stairs and save lives! the codes are a MINIMUM standard for safety and exceeding that is great but leave the ahj out of that one.

Where I come from my SOP requires:

(From TX SOP)

(4) report as in need of repair spacings between intermediate balusters, spindles, or rails for steps, stairways, balconies, and railings that permit passage of an object greater than four inches in diameter; and

(5) report as in need of repair the absence of safety glass in hazardous locations.

My SOP does not say anything about what the current or past code is or was.

I did an inspection last year (22 year old home) where the seller told the buyer that they were'nt going to and were not required to bring anything up to current code and that the inspector (me) was out of line by listing certain issue as being in need of repair. To which I replied (to my client) that:

Although nothing in my report was "required" to be repaired by the seller,
many of these "current code" issues were related to safety concerns and that many were also required by the state SOP to be listed on the report.

I went on to say that code changes come into effect many times because of safety concerns that may not have been realized or acknowledged at the time of the house was built and it is my duty to make the client aware of the any issues that I see that may affect the clients safety.

In my opinion, if an inspector is not looking out for the safety of their client, they are not performing thier responsibilities as a home inspector.

Eric

Just got an Email with a newsletter from the ICC. One of the items in the newsletter addressed this very problem.

Some other items of interest in there as well.


http://www.iccsafe.org/news/ePeriodi...antChanges.pdf

As to code enforcement and legalities....Give me common sense every time.

[IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/Owner/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot-7.jpg[/IMG]

__________________
Critical Home Inspection Services
www.Home2Spec.com

Eric,

That's why I underlined that part of the code.

"do not allow passage of a sphere 4 inches"

versus

"object greater than four inches"

See the difference?

__________________
Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )

Write it up! This one might even be more dangerous, since the kid could get his head in the larger part, then slide down unil it gets narrow and get injured.
"Guardrail ballusters do not appear to meet modern day safety standards and allow a 4" sphere (representing the size of a small child's head) to pass through. For maximum risk reduction of injury to small children, recommend repair, child safety netting, etc.) by a licensed contractor."

Jerry,

Yep, I see the difference. To clarify (if clarification is needed), my post was added mainly because someone suggested that if the issue in the original thread starter was legal when the house was built, then it would not be an issue. The point I was trying to make was that regardless of what was code when it was built, under my SOP (and probably others) it is considered a repair issue and should be called out. The TX SOP makes no mention as to the age of the house when specifying repair issues. But to be truthful, as your code post shows, the Texas SOP definitely needs clarification (but that is a whole 'nother thread!)

Eric