Stairhell - InspectionNews

BARRY ADAIR · #1 (**permalink**) 05-07-2007, 03:21 AM

Owner said they had a permit, "We just can't locate it right now."
30" wide 74" max. headroom and to top it off

Jerry Peck · #2 (**permalink**) 05-07-2007, 06:23 AM

I like that top "landing".

Richard Rushing · #3 (**permalink**) 05-07-2007, 06:40 AM

The railing looks like someone took baby Junior's baby bed apart and used the sides as railing...

Rich

Mike Huppi · #4 (**permalink**) 05-07-2007, 09:03 AM

Here is one that I found the other day the hole in the floor was in the living room I was joking with the buyer about finding a slide or do a firemans pole.

Thom Walker · #5 (**permalink**) 05-07-2007, 10:50 AM

I have to wonder if the garage door replaces a former solid wall? It would make sense. I figure after the third time the guy fell down the steps and crashed into the wall, he installed the door. Was the button for the opener at the top of the steps?

Jerry McCarthy · #6 (**permalink**) 05-07-2007, 10:59 AM

Barry
You’ve posted one of the best stair defect photos I’ve ever seen.
Thanks, a quick count shows 5 clear hazards to foot traffic.
Does anyone see any more than 5?

Jerry McCarthy · #7 (**permalink**) 05-07-2007, 11:02 AM

Mike,
Not bad, just your ordinary garden variety killer stair!

Joe Tribuzio · #8 (**permalink**) 05-07-2007, 11:07 AM

i imagine the owner of the home in a body cast after some " Inspector Clouseau"
style pratfalls.

Seriously, i cringed when i saw those pics.

Joe

Jerry McCarthy · #9 (**permalink**) 05-07-2007, 11:12 AM

This is old but still classic in my book. It served an 11 unit apt building as the main entry stair. (make that the only entry stair)

Thom Walker · #10 (**permalink**) 05-07-2007, 11:40 AM

width
headroom
tread overhangs appears to exceed 1 1/4"
lack of landings at upper and at lower door
missing handrail
nosing varience greater than 3/8ths inch between treads
varience in riser heights
appears to be greater than 4" requirement re: balusters

Jim Luttrall · #11 (**permalink**) 05-07-2007, 12:04 PM

Rip it out and start over.

Jerry Peck · #12 (**permalink**) 05-07-2007, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerry McCarthy

Barry
You’ve posted one of the best stair defect photos I’ve ever seen.
Thanks, a quick count shows 5 clear hazards to foot traffic.
Does anyone see any more than 5?

I did a quick count of about 10.

Jerry Peck · #13 (**permalink**) 05-07-2007, 06:17 PM

This is a little slower review, typing as I look.

1) (not seen, but we were told it was too narrow)
2) Lower landing not deep enough
3) lower riser height definitely to great of a variance
4) No railing at bottom, on either side
5) Door at 4th step up
6) Door swings out over tread, not landing
7) Nosing overhangs riser too far
8) Tread depth variation to great, the tread depth at the door is not as great as the treads below it
9) Top landing not deep enough
10) Top riser height variation too great
11) No railing at top
12) No handrail
13) Railing spacing appears too great
14) Bottom rail over 2" high (but I will have to look that up, I believe that was removed from the requirements)
15)

Jerry Peck · #14 (**permalink**) 05-07-2007, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerry McCarthy

This is old but still classic in my book. It served an 11 unit apt building as the main entry stair. (make that the only entry stair)

Jerry M.,

How many people have been injured on that dilapidated and unsafe stair?

Robert Schenck · #15 (**permalink**) 06-15-2007, 06:32 AM

Barry, ..... Great pictures !! After looking at the pic's for awhile, .. I asked myself - "Why didn't they build the staircase running downward along the wall", … 90 degree’s in either direction ? This would have prevented having a gaping hole in the floor at a high traffic area !! Hmmm, I guess that would have taken up too much room in the garage, and they wouldn’t be able to park their John Deer Cadillac ? It never fails to amaze me what some people will do.