Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
profession or job deviates from what is deemed good practice, he/she may
be liable for negligence in claims involving personal injury or property
damage. If a manufacturer produces a product without exercising due care
that the product is safe for its intended purpose, the manufacturer is liable.
Plaintiffs, through their legal counsel, must prove that personal injuries
and/or property damage claimed were due to the unreasonable or negligent
acts of defendants.
Strict liability applies to claims related to defective products. Such prod-
ucts may be defective as a result of their design or problems in manufactur-
ing. Under strict liability, there is no determination of “fault” as is the case
in negligence claims. Strict liability claims challenge the safety of products
and not the conduct of manufacturers. Strict liability has historically been
used in cases involving the safety of products. However, in some judicial
districts, it has been applied to buildings as well. Buildings could, in many
cases, be described as products. Because the burden of proof is relatively
limited, strict liability claims may have a higher probability of success (than
those based on other legal theories) in recovering damages.
Over the past two decades, plaintiffs have filed numerous suits alleging
personal injury, property damage, or both, associated with IE-associated prob-
lems. These have included hundreds of claims filed against installers, distrib-
utors, and manufacturers of UFFI; sellers and manufacturers of mobile homes;
and manufacturers of urea-formaldehyde (UF)- bonded wood products. Most
of these claims were filed in the early to mid-1980s and, for the most part,
have now been resolved. Most claims alleged personal injury from HCHO
exposures. In UFFI cases, claims were often limited to property damage.
Personal injury, and in some cases property damage, claims have been
filed in cases alleging misapplication of pesticides in and around residential
structures. Hundreds of claims alleging personal injury associated with the
misapplication of chlordane were filed in the 1980s. Claims involving mis-
application of a number of pesticide products in indoor environments con-
tinue to be common.
Occasionally, claims are filed against architects who are deemed to be
negligent because they: failed to include exhaust ventilation in school build-
ings where solvents could reasonably be expected to be used; designed
buildings without adequate general ventilation; or specified unsafe products.
Architects are sued for malpractice (failure to perform one's job to the stan-
dards of the profession). Claims are occasionally filed against owners and
operators of buildings who are alleged to have operated ventilation systems
improperly, used pesticides unsafely, etc.
Claims against installers and vendors of combustion appliances and
associated systems are often brought in cases involving flue gas spillage and
alleged CO poisoning, particularly when appliances are new or changes are
made in flue-gas venting systems. Claims have also been made against
manufacturers of high-efficiency furnaces who failed to anticipate corrosion
problems that resulted from the use of combustion air that was contaminated
with chlorine from the use of chlorinated water and other chlorine com-
