Retaining Wall Failure. 1

[EEJaime]

Strange how this statement does not deny that the wall was built without permit. Further, it admits to having "fully rebuilt" this wall in 2007 including work to "substantially reinforce its foundation". It does not say wether this rebuild was to "engineered plans" or that a "geotechnical expert" ever supervised this work, or in fact wether that re-build was permitted or ever inspected. I think they are in a lot of trouble.

 

[CPENG78]

Like bridgebuster mentions, that is the case for most of the cities that I have been involved here in California. They are structured so that inspections are done by different departments with different personnel. And like human nature, it sometimes ends up in been "not my job".

What human nature sometimes forgets is that directly or indirectly everyone's paycheck (whether you are the city inspector, the contractor, the engigeer or other consultant) comes from the same place; the home owner or whoever the client will be for your project. By no means do I aim to shift attention or blame away from whoever was responsible (there is such a concept as taking responsibility for your actions) for this but we call all help each other a little more if we would stop saying, "not my job". I think in the end it makes us better engineers.

CTW,
Most of my work has been in residential development. In some cases and depending on the sequence of construction such tall retaining walls would fall under either the "mass grading permit" or "grading permit" for that phase of the project.

 

[vandede427]

I was talking to a guy having issues with his house that was under construction. He had informed his builder that he wanted his CMU basement walls poured solid. The builder agreed to do it but did not. When the owner confronted the builder, he said "it's ok, I made the footing extra wide." Obviously, those two items are completely unrelated.

The problem in residential construction is the lack of knowlege about fundamentals.

Two of the most common mistakes I've seen in residential construction are 1) 10' tall retaining walls with a 2' wide footing and 2) gable walls that neither have bracing at the ceiling level or are connected adequately at the top to the roof deck.

There's nothing wrong with being ignorant. It simply mean you just don't know and need to be taught. I'm ignorant about a lot of things that aren't structural enginering. But what you don't know CAN hurt you and a lot of home builders don't know the mechanincs of how a house distributes loads.

 

[Mike1144]

The City of San Antonio posted their preliminary findings.

 

[msquared48]

Interesting that no mention is made of any Geotechnical report for either the subdivision or the wall.

They cite the possibility of a faulty design here. That leaves me to assume that no Geotech report was done. But, with the 3 foot shear key being a BIG indicator of sliding problems, I would think that there was one used. Perhaps an adjoining site? I think I remember a comment to this effect.

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering
Motto: KISS
Motivation: Don't ask

 

[JedClampett]

A sheer key? Didn't the city's engineer review the final draft?

 

[dik]

Interesting memo... he has not included information about the construction of the homes adjacent to the wall. Did the City review this? did they have building inspectors familiar with the Code? with construction? with the permits necessary? did they observe the retaining wall? did they ask any questions about the construction of the wall? did they note the wall in any reports? any engineers on site? were the building inspectors engineers? if not, why not? from the City? If they were the only technical people involved, then the City could be in for a pile of...

Dik

 

[hokie66]

Who would be the owner of those retaining walls? They appear to be between houses. Where would the boundary be located?

 

[EEJaime]

Let the finger pointing begin. What a mess! There appears to be a lot of people that failed to perform.

I often wonder what the liability ramifications are if I design something and it is not constructed in accordance with my design, but I am not engaged for the Construction Administration portion of services. I assume that somewhere down the road, as in this memo, which states among possible causes for failure, the "Design failure in the wall was never properly designed in the first place." [Isn't that the most atrociously written sentence?]

When this gets to court everyone ever associated with it will be named. This memo does not state why the author feels that the design was possibly at fault, but that possibility is always on the list, especially if it is designed by a P.E. with Errors and Omissions insurance.

 

[Mike1144]

The wall had already failed once before, it was replaced in 2007. Granted it wasn't as dramatic a failure. That wall may have been properly built from the same plans and still failed.

 

[dgillette]

EEJaime - Legally, I think you would be in the clear on liability, but you might have to spend big $ on lawyers to prove that. You lose either way.

The other thing about that list that bugs me is how they list "Slip failure of the soil strata below the wall" as if it would cause the problem without there having been a human failure to adequately understand and accommodate the site conditions. The foundation is what it is. Can't blame the dirt.

 

[EEJaime]

dgillette,

Thank you. "Can't blame the dirt"? Lawyers can blame anything. The contractor's lawyer will probably name the earthworms in his defense for undermining the wall. And you are right, only the lawyers will make out on this one.

 

[ishvaaag]

Do not expect general clarification of the responsabilities by the legal process. They fail I think more than designers do in their duty. They want the process finished, liabilities adjudicated, and that's all. Sometimes it doesn't matter if evidence is laid plain before them, they have their rules and they seem are quite able to disregard truth and testimony against imagined action or intent.

 

[brandoncdg]

EEjamie: From everyone I know around here that has a problem on a project, instantly the lawyer sues each and every consultant. The problem with this is your insurance will tell you it's cheaper to settle than to fight the issue.

That's why I make a point for mentioning what we think are issues on retaining walls if we look at another consultants plans and don't 100% agree. I don't really care if I am doing some extra work for free, I would hate to be a homeowner with issues down the line because someone used a generic xyz design for the entire site.

That's probably why I am more curious how this wall problem ends. Let's say I know what Centex's reputation was. I was surprised to hear Pulte mentioned since they weren't exactly the developer at the time and I think they have a very different reputation.

Civil Development Group, LLC
Los Angeles Civil Engineering specializing in Hillside Grading

http://civildevelopmentgroup.com

http://civildevelopmentgroup.com/blog

 

[dgillette]

OK, maybe I should restate that as "SHOULDN'T blame the dirt." ;-)

 

[EEJaime]

Gentlemen,

I too have been involved in contractor/client "shotgun" lawsuits which named everybody ever even remotely associated with the project and have seen all too often our attorneys' advice to "just negotiate as small a percentage of liability as possible and get on with it". Very discouraging. Especially when we actually had ZERO liability for the issue at hand.

We've even settled a lawsuit by one particularly unscrupulous contractor and his unbelievable incompetant and totally out of touch attorneys, whom filed suit because our enforcment of the specification on a project, insisting that they provide an item specified or an equal product was "restraint of trade". One of the most ludicrous arguments I've ever seen. After 4 months of depositions in which I sat and answered the same questions at least twenty times each, our attorney told us we would win at trial, but it would cost us more than the settlement they were asking. Absolutely absurd.

The construction industry has gone to the dogs in the last 25 years, well some portions of it. We still occasionally are involved with professional contractors and quality tradesmen and ethical ownership. They seem fewer and farther between each year.

Regards,
EEJaime

 

[Lion06]

Maybe the attorneys are giving bad advice. Maybe it would cost more to go to trial and not have to pay anything than to just settle. That may bee true, but also short sited. There is a reason pharmaceutical companies fight virtually every lawsuit even though it costs more to fight than to settle. It's setting a precedent.

Of course the attorneys will name everyone in sight if they know the other attorney is going to tell them to settle. It's easy money for the attorneys (all of them).

If I ever found myself in that situation, I would definitely fight it (if I were not at fault). I think that would help draw a line about what and who should be sued. I'm not saying my one stand would change anything, but I would certainly sleep better at night.

What is cheaper in the long run? Settling 20 suits when you weren't wrong, or defending 3 or 4? Isn't there some provision that would allow us to collect attorneys' fees if we are named in a suit that is "frivolous"?

 

[EEJaime]

EIT,
I totally agree, and if I were an independant engineer in the suit I would have done as you suggest if finances allowed. However, I was working with a mult-office, multi-state, corporate minded company that was basically run by lawyers anyway. A no-win situation for us defending a technically 'pure' stance. Bean counters will out.
EEJaime

 

[JedClampett]

When involved in litigation, you have to remember two important points. One is that juries, being technically inexperienced, might go any way for any reason when deciding a case. They might fall asleep during your testimony and just of had a triple Starbucks Venti Dark Roast when the plaintiffs expert is testifying. Or they don't understand so they just split the difference. If you're being sued for $3,000,000 and you're arguing you should pay zero, they'll decide that $1,500,000 is fair to everyone.
Second, it's a small engineering world. You might need or want to do business with the same people that are suing you some time. Permanently pissing them off might be poor business in the future.
I was advised by an owner of our company that it's never worth going to trial. Even when you win, you lose.

 

[Lion06]

Jed,

Is it really poor business to piss them off if they're costing you money when you're not at fault? I know I sound like I'm on a soapbox, but some things just really aren't right!