You would think failing to comply with multiple building codes counts as negligence.
An error is one mistake maybe 2.
If they can't meet the absolute minimum when it's their job to do so well yeah.
Problem is that the guy is also correct when he says "that should have been caught by ______, or _____, or _____..." Assuming that things work the same way there as here:
1) Architect draws plans. - Okay, failed to check specification for materials on this type of building.
2) Plans are submitted to equivalent of Department of Building and Safety for
Plan Check - this is the stage where B&S marks everything they want to be reviewed by an engineer for loading calculations, etc...I've also had any number of plans kicked back here for improper materials because they are in fact supposed to check that
3) Plans are corrected by architect and submitted for engineering review - An engineering firm has to perform all the calculations required for loading, meaning snow on the roof, wind pressures, weight distribution on all load bearing structural members. In doing that they look up every material used to determine rated strength and material weight...and if they looked that up they looked right at "not suitable for this purpose" and while it isn't specifically what they are contracted to do there is a general rule of thumb that says they will tell the architect that piece of information before they stamp OK all over the plans.
4) Plans go back to B&S for secondary review - this is making sure that everything the engineer was supposed to check was checked, and includes some amount of verification ie yes this calculation is correct, so is this one, so is that one...okay spot check good. This is supposedly done by someone who is familiar with the type of construction the plans are for so that they will pick smart things to recheck, and at least in theory that sort of person would say "hmmmmm, haven't seen that used on something like this," look it up and be all over it.
Assuming all that is gotten past you get a permit. Now
5) Contractor - gets material for the job. He's looking at different suppliers and comparing their products to the general material specification on the plans. Can I get this thickness. Does it meet this load carry specification. Etc etc etc. He may talk to one supplier, and he may talk to ten, but every one of those conversations is generally going to include a rough description of the job and under normal circumstances every supplier of that material is going to say "you are building what, where...man this material isn't code for that you need _____________." They are also going to supply a spec sheet for the material and that spec sheet is not going to match the code requirements on the plans.
6) Inspector - on the job site an inspector is signing off steps on the permit. He is not going to look at a material that isn't normal for the type of job and say "huh, look at that," and just sign. Inspectors just
ache to say "show me how that's right" and watch people scurry about.
So, yeah, a whole bunch of people along the line are "culpable" for making mistakes. Maybe every one of them says "well I thought..." and fingers someone else up or down the chain. Maybe inspectors get canned, architects get fired, contractors get blacklisted; maybe all kinds of things happen...but willful negligence charges sticking? On one guy along the chain? Not a chance.
