Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

another example of "stop the world I want to get off"

Discussion in 'The Pub' started by ibast, Mar 9, 2010.

  1. This isnt so much about the electrician wanting to shrug off responsibility, afterall, he's dead.

    This is about the widow wanting more $$$
  2. Why doesn't the headline read "Self employed man fails to take out life insurance policy" ??

    Bummer. Though, the wire could have been hidden and he brushed up against it or something.
    Roofs are nasty too, coz the jolt might not necessarily get you, but the fall afterwards can do it.

    The plumber is definitely a prick for leaving a live wire exposed; that is just laziness and neglect.
    I don't see how the homeowner can bear any of the blame apart from the fact it was their property so 'technically in the eyes of the law'... etc
  3. and they wonder why homeowners are doing more stuff themselves :roll:
  4. If it's electrical as far as I know it's illegal to to it yourself...
  5. True, but at least if you injure youself due to your own incompetance, you know that you won't be sued.
  6. correct

    exactly the point i was trying to make(y)
  7. That’s just stupid!

    Unless the home owner is qualified in some way, and was involved in the process of removing the old hot water system - i don’t see why anyone hiring a professional should be liable for said professionals dodgy work!

    How can any home owner be reasonably expected to know what the state of the wiring in the roof is if they had nothing to do with its installation or maintenance? i hope the judge knows whats going on in her roof now!
  8. What a fukn joke!
  9. We don't know the facts of the case; its possible that the plumber informed the home owner about the live wire connection to the old system and the possible implications, yet the home owner, to save a few dollars decided not to remove it.
  10. I contest that is irrelevant. It is always an electrician primary responsibility to himself to ensure wires are not live and if they are live deal with them appropriately.

    If we are getting into speculation, it may well have been the electrician realised the connection was live but decided to work on it live. We don't know what went through his head minutes before his death.
  11. Exactly my point. We can't get all up in arms while relying on some vague media report as we do not know the facts of the matter- for all we know the decision is fully justified. Most judges are smarter than the average net-surfing Joe and usually take all issues and facts into account. Sure, some decisions may be considered wrong but they're usually not 'stop the world' absurd. Furthermore, there are always avenues for appeals.
  12. ive just started an electrical apprenticeship and yes, you do assume its live.

    plumbers are meant to have a termination license, i think just means they should be able to terminate wires safely.

    my boss has worked on things live simply because turning it off has been a hassle, so that could well be the case.
  13. Sorry, if I employ someone to decommission an old hot water system, that means disconnecting the power. Disconnecting the power means dealing with the live wires, preferably removing them altogether, but at least removing the power supply!

    Home owner should sue the plumber for negligence that has cost him $70,000.

    And say_wat - appeals are only viable if you can afford to mount one, knowing that you might still lose and have to cover further costs.
  14. If you read the article, it states that the court found the plumber 80% liable, and the homeowner 20%. There is no recourse for the homeowner here to sue the plumber.
  15. So why do we pay qualified tradesmen to do their job?
  16. So they take 80% of the liability, and our home insurance hopefully covers the rest.
  17. What home insurance covers your personal liability (20% or whatever, it's cost him $70,000) for shoddy work done by tradies?

    ginji - I did read the article... I quoted from it. Total liability = $350,000, 20% of which the owner got slugged with = $70,000. My point was that I would have thought the plumber's duty of care to the owner would extend to leaving the job in a safe state, and that his failure to do so has now caused the owner $70,000 damage, which he should then be liable for.

    It's a simplistic legal argument, sure, but still valid isn't it?
  18. Yep I've seen it done heaps of times too. It's a decision by the individual electrician and now the precedence is the home owner can be held liable for that decision, if the electrician doesn't make it publicly known that he has made that decision. Which he won't because I believe you should have an extra qualification to work on live wires.
  19. yeah, i think that is the case? im not to sure, the closet ive worked to live so far is having a switch with one active terminal (aka dont touch :p )

    why do you pay tradesmen? well, there are definately a lot of idiots out there (ive been working 2 months now and met a few good cases), but the good ones definately have the skills, and will get things done quicker and better than most.

    plumbers and of course electricians have licenses, so that separates them as to do some of that work yourself is dangerous and illegal.

    as with a lot of things, what is meant to happen and what actually happens are completely different. things are left in such a mess by some :(