Originally Posted by
Jerry Peck
The liability can be shifted to the owner quite easily, has has been explained previously.
Why would one not go with testing the shower pan when testing the shower pan is so easy and not testing the shower pan could be quite harmful to your client?
Harm equals foul equals liability for NOT testing the shower pans when they are so easy to test.
There is a greater level of liability for not testing shower pans than for testing shower pans - unless one just says 'Oh, by the way, I don't test shower pans for leaks even though I am aware that a high percentage of them leak.'
Why not just follow that with 'Oh, yeah, and I don't remove electrical panel covers either even though I know that there are problems in a high percentage of electrical panels.'
And, 'Oh, I don't run a/c systems either even though I know that there are problems in a high percentage of a/c systems.'
In fact, why not just say you don't inspect or test anything, no matter how easy it is to test, even though you know that a high percentage of those items have problems, here is my bill, make the check out to ... Ian, we can both go to extremes on this, but testing a shower pans is not extreme, it is easy, and it exposed many which leak, and the liability of testing them is almost nil versus the liability of not testing them.
As I have said before, though, it is your business and your call, I just keep explaining it for everyone else who has not made their mind up not to do something easy which products useful results so often and has very low liability for doing it.