View Single Post
  #29  
Old 11-25-2013, 10:54 AM
JohnE's Avatar
JohnE JohnE is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Boat: 1997 '190 LT-1/ 'slot
Location: Boston 'burbs
Posts: 8,242
Quote:
Originally Posted by kkkeating View Post

The point being with my post is the inspector is not necessary out of bounds with his request. The code is not as clear as it should be for this type of installation. I’m a professional electrical engineer who works in the industry and you’d be surprised what can come up in a lawsuit. And it doesn’t matter what’s in the code. If I was to design this installation, and if someone damaged the cable and got electrocuted, the first item the attorneys’ would bring up would be “The code requires physical protection of the cable, and obviously you didn’t provide it as someone got electrocuted”. At that point in time my Errors and Omission’s insurance kicks in $50K as opposed to trying to fight it and paying substantially more after a trail. This could be the inspector’s company policy for this type of installation. It cost no money to them to implement, and can save a potential lawsuit from occurring in the future against them.
This is the only part of your response that I agree with. But lets agree to take the rest over to Mike Holt's site. We won't bore anyone here with it. We'd have ten pages of responses over there.
__________________
'97 Prostar 190 - LT-1

Prior boats - 2009 X14, 2008 X14, 2005 197, 1988 Tristar 190, 1989 Prostar.
Reply With Quote