# Berkeley Balcony Lawsuits Say Long Series of Errors Led to Deadly Collapse



## mark handler (Nov 14, 2015)

Berkeley Balcony Lawsuits Say Long Series of Errors Led to Deadly Collapse

http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/11/13/berkeley-balcony-lawsuits-say-long-series-of-errors-led-to-deadly-collapse







By Dan Brekke

NOVEMBER 13, 2015

Lawsuits filed on behalf of a dozen Irish victims of last June’s fatal apartment balcony collapse in Berkeley allege that property managers had been alerted to signs of structural rot nearly seven years before the tragedy.

Six people were killed and seven seriously injured early the morning of June 16 when a fifth-floor balcony at the Library Gardens apartment complex collapsed. The 13 victims, mostly Irish students visiting Berkeley on a summer-abroad program, fell about 40 feet to the street below.

An investigation afterward found that the wooden beams designed to support the balcony failed because of advanced dry rot.

The 12 lawsuits — one, for victim Niall Murray, is embedded below — allege that the series of events that led to the collapse began when the balcony for Apartment 405 was under construction.

The complaints allege that contractors, including Pleasanton-based Segue Construction and its subcontractors, left the balcony structure open after it was built in late 2005, a period during which it was exposed to prolonged precipitation — 13 inches of rainfall on 21 separate days. As a result, the suits say, the framing and oriented strand board decking on the balcony floor were saturated with water before contractors began the process of waterproofing the structure.

“These defendants knew that waterproofing and sealing the already waterlogged [oriented strand board] and underlying wooden joists was dangerous,” the complaints allege. They add that going through with the waterproofing at that point “would promote and accelerated dangerous wood rot, and would cause the rapid deterioration of the structural support of the balcony.”

The suits say “an unambiguous ‘red flag’ warning” of that deterioration began to appear soon after Apartment 405 was first occupied.

From October 2008 through the summer of 2010, the documents say, “tenants observed large mushrooms growing from multiple locations on the surface of the apartment’s balcony” and complained to the building management, Greystar. The suits say neither the managers nor the building owners, real estate conglomerate Blackrock Inc., did anything to correct the structural problems.

The complaints also claim that a year before the June 16 collapse, the Apartment 405 balcony “demonstrated an increased tilt away from the building” when people stood on it. That condition was reported to or seen by the building’s owners and managers, who again failed to take corrective action, the suits say.

We’re seeking comment from the major defendants in the case.

The suits were filed on behalf of the estates of Olivia Burke, Eoghan Culligan, Niccolai Schuster, Lorcan Miller and Eimear Walsh — all 21 and all from Ireland.

Other plaintiffs include Irish students Niall Murray, Aoife Beary, Clodagh Cogley, Sean Fahey, Conor Flynn, Jack Halpin and Hannah Waters.


----------



## ICE (Nov 14, 2015)

> The complaints also claim that a year before the June 16 collapse, the Apartment 405 balcony “demonstrated an increased tilt away from the building” when people stood on it. That condition was reported to or seen by the building’s owners and managers, who again failed to take corrective action, the suits say.


That deserves criminal charges for the people that knew about it.  If the tenant that occupied the apartment at the time of the collapse knew about it he/she deserves jail time as well.


----------



## conarb (Nov 14, 2015)

> The complaints allege that contractors, including Pleasanton-based Segue Construction and its subcontractors, left the balcony structure open after it was built in late 2005, a period during which it was exposed to prolonged precipitation — 13 inches of rainfall on 21 separate days. *As a result, the suits say, the framing and oriented strand board decking on the balcony floor were saturated with water before contractors began the process of waterproofing the structure.*


The same thing all over again, that damn OSB gets wet and fails, I blame the code agencies that approved the crap in the first place, they have to know that cheap construction will always use the cheapest products.  I also blame the architects/engineers who specified it, as a builder I've never used the crap, or course I've had the luxury of only doing high quality/high priced work.  If Segue hadn't used the cheap materials they would never get a job. Of course it's saving the planet since it's made from crap on the forest floor so the precious trees don't have to be cut, maybe the environmental codes that give credit for it deserve blame to.  I don't believe that Berkeley had a Green code back when this project was permitted but they sure do now.  I've posted several times over the past few years about the failed Seahaus condo development in San Diego.



			
				\ said:
			
		

> But Alkasabi says over the past few years, he has noticed serious problems with the construction."Drainage issues, plumbing issues, electricity issues," he said.
> 
> But the biggest problem involves the laminated wooden beams that support the 138-unit complex.
> 
> ...


This other article says it all:



			
				\ said:
			
		

> Segue used cheaper materials to construct the balcony, making it more susceptible to water damage, and left it exposed to rain during construction in 2005, the lawsuit says.¹


They always blame the builder for using cheap materials, the blame should be placed upon whomever caused the cheap materials to be used.  Even if the OSB hadn't gotten wet during construction, sometime in the lifespan of the building moisture will get into the structure having the same effect.  Why do codes allow crap like this?  Now we even have green codes that require it.

¹ http://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/national/parents%E2%80%99-us-lawsuit-says-berkeley-balcony-showed-clear-signs-of-rot/ar-BBmX9Sv


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Nov 15, 2015)

ICE said:
			
		

> That deserves criminal charges for the people that knew about it.  If the tenant that occupied the apartment at the time of the collapse knew about it he/she deserves jail time as well.


I also think criminal charges should be filed against the tenant for noticing it and still loading it up with less than-than-smart dumbkoffs.

Brent.


----------



## conarb (Nov 15, 2015)

MASSDRIVER said:
			
		

> I also think criminal charges should be filed against the tenant for noticing it and still loading it up with less than-than-smart dumbkoffs. Brent.


But Brent the law also involves reasonable anticipation of the risk, the architects/engineers shouldn't have to anticipate an elephant standing on that deck, who would have reasonably anticipated that a gang or drunken Irishmen would gang up on a deck in Berkeley California? Something I don't understand, before mushrooms would have grown on the top of the waterlogged balcony all kinds of brown water stains would have appeared on the underside of the stucco, somebody should have noticed that, if they did and did report it that would have tolled the statute of limitations from the 10 year latent to the 4 year patent at the time of discovery.


----------



## Mark K (Nov 15, 2015)

There were no allegations that the tenants who were occupying the unit at the time of the collapse were aware that there was a problem.  The problem was apparently reported by a previous tenant.

The criminal charges would be against the Owner/Management Agency for doing nothing when they were on notice that there were problems but did nothing.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Nov 15, 2015)

Mark K said:
			
		

> There were no allegations that the tenants who were occupying the unit at the time of the collapse were aware that there was a problem.  The problem was apparently reported by a previous tenant.The criminal charges would be against the Owner/Management Agency for doing nothing when they were on notice that there were problems but did nothing.


Leaning doesn't go away.

Brent.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Nov 15, 2015)

I'll try to dig it up. Some where I have a pic of a hoard of people standing on evels of a fire escape balcony on a building in San Francisco. I mean PACKED. Proudly displayed in a frame in the flat I was working in. It would have looked like hamburger in a garlic press.

People are dumb, dumber when drunk, and lacking measurable brain activity when in college.

That does not absolve bad building practices, but some thought needs preceed self selection.

Brent.


----------



## ICE (Nov 15, 2015)

I recall reading that the contractor that built this was up to his eyeballs in lawsuits over this exact problem.  How is it that nobody took a closer look st everything this contractor has ever built.  The contractor should have been in front of this.  Now he's in front of a train that's going to steamroll right over him.


----------



## conarb (Nov 15, 2015)

Note that BlackRock and all of their subdivisions are named, they set the budget, the architect is named but now engineers, also note the city is not a named defendant, the plasterer is a plasterer that I have used, the fire sprinkler contractor is named, wonder if they penetrated the WRB?  There are 500 Does named and as the evidence develops 500 more defendants can be named.  I see Grace that supplied the waterproofing is named but the OSB manufacturer is not.


----------



## Mark K (Nov 15, 2015)

Do not blame the victims.

The problem was not with the number of individuals on the balcony.  The number of people on the balcony resulted in a load significantly less than what it was designed for.  The problem was that the effective size of the framing was reduced as a result of the decay.

The City has essentially zero liability exposure for the collapse.

It is easy to blame OSB but will suggest that the use of OSB had little to nothing to do with the collapse.


----------



## conarb (Nov 15, 2015)

\ said:
			
		

> The problem was not with the number of individuals on the balcony. The number of people on the balcony resulted in a load significantly less than what it was designed for. The problem was that the effective size of the framing was reduced as a result of the decay.


I don't think this will go to a jury trial but if it did can't you see the plaintiff's attorney in his closing argument to the jury:  "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, but for the fact that the architect specified that cheap OSB sheathing those dozen victims would be alive today.  If that architect has specified real wood those victims of his incompetence would be alive today!  Now the defense has told you that even real wood would have rotted out in a few more years, if that is true they would have killed completely different people years in the future, you are not here to determine the liability for hypothetical future deaths, you are here today to determine who is liable for the dozen people killed by this architect's negligence.  Ladies and gentlemen, that architect sitting right there in front of you has killed a dozen people because of his negligence, are you going to let him go free to specify more cheap products and kill more people to line his pockets with ever more commissions for designing cheap buildings to satisfy greedy hedge funds like BlackRock?"


----------



## Mark K (Nov 15, 2015)

The OSB sheathing spanned between the cantilever joists.  What failed were the cantilever joists.  If the OSB sheathing had failed at worse the individuals would have dropped a few feet and hung up on the joists.

My guess is that the concrete topping slab spanned between the joists making the OSB irrelevant with respect to supporting the vertical load.


----------



## conarb (Nov 15, 2015)

Mark K said:
			
		

> The OSB sheathing spanned between the cantilever joists.  What failed were the cantilever joists.  If the OSB sheathing had failed at worse the individuals would have dropped a few feet and hung up on the joists.My guess is that the concrete topping slab spanned between the joists making the OSB irrelevant with respect to supporting the vertical load.


Several expert witnesses including some architects will review the physical evidence and come up with their analyses as to what failed and why, undoubtedly the architects will be asked: "After reviewing the evidence if you were the design professional what would you have done differently to prevent catastrophes like this?"  You might want to ponder that question in light of the fact that you have a client demanding the cheapest possible alternative. There is an interesting twist to this, the Grace waterproofing was approved at the time of permit application; however, that approval was withdrawn by Grace before the start of construction. Should the architect have notified someone of that change in approvals offering to redesign the waterproofing system?


----------



## conarb (Nov 18, 2015)

The two biggest culprits here are 1) The idiot woman on the Berkeley Design Review Commission who demanded that the balcony be added and 2) BlackRock, the owner that set the budget, now *I see BlackRock is in trouble.* I don't think most inspectors even know what goes on, the architects here should know, but I recall once when my major apartment client called demanding I meet with him on a Saturday to "go over" the budget on a 65 unit building, when I got there we were alone and he took me into the conference room, the locks were set so we were locked in the room and he told me that we weren't leaving that room until we had a deal, at noon his wife would come by with sandwiches, if needed she would return with dinner, but no matter how many days it took we would remain in the room until we had a deal.  during that day I had to decide where I could cut costs to meet his investors' budget, of course I was arguing to eliminate items to reduce costs, the one with the money controls. Ironically I built his office building a few year earlier and I put the lock on the door so people could be locked in.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Nov 18, 2015)

Go ahead and lock me in a room with someone, then tell me we aren t leaving until we make a deal.

I would be a millionaire in 5 minutes. And I'd want my damn truck washed too. I could give someone a door knob phobia.

Brent.


----------



## steveray (Nov 18, 2015)

conarb said:
			
		

> The two biggest culprits here are 1) The idiot woman on the Berkeley Design Review Commission who demanded that the balcony be added and 2) BlackRock, the owner that set the budget, now *I see BlackRock is in trouble.* I don't think most inspectors even know what goes on, the architects here should know, but I recall once when my major apartment client called demanding I meet with him on a Saturday to "go over" the budget on a 65 unit building, when I got there we were alone and he took me into the conference room, the locks were set so we were locked in the room and he told me that we weren't leaving that room until we had a deal, at noon his wife would come by with sandwiches, if needed she would return with dinner, but no matter how many days it took we would remain in the room until we had a deal.  during that day I had to decide where I could cut costs to meet his investors' budget, of course I was arguing to eliminate items to reduce costs, the one with the money controls. Ironically I built his office building a few year earlier and I put the lock on the door so people could be locked in.


Call the FM and have him fined or jailed for impeding egress....

Sec. 29-306. (Formerly Sec. 29-53). Abatement of fire hazards: Order to remove or remedy; penalties; notification of officials; order to vacate; review by State Fire Marshal. (a) When the local fire marshal ascertains that there exists in any building, or upon any premises, (1) combustible or explosive matter, dangerous accumulation of rubbish or any flammable material especially liable to fire, that is so situated as to endanger life or property, (2) obstructions or conditions that present a fire hazard to the occupants or interfere with their egress in case of fire, or (3) a condition in violation of the statutes relating to fire prevention or safety, or any regulation made pursuant thereto, the remedy of which requires construction or a change in structure, the local fire marshal shall order such materials to be immediately removed or the conditions remedied by the owner or occupant of such building or premises. Any such removal or remedy shall be in conformance with all building codes, ordinances, rules and regulations of the municipality involved. Any person, firm or corporation which violates any provision of this subsection shall be fined not more than one hundred dollars or be imprisoned not more than three months, or both, and, in addition, may be fined fifty dollars a day for each day’s continuance of each violation, to be recovered in a proper action in the name of the state.


----------



## conarb (Nov 18, 2015)

Let's not let my humor on the locked door situation get away from the real issue, deals like this are cut in marathon negotiations all the time, they even call it "value engineering" now, the owner trying to get the price down as low as possible and the builder trying to get as much as possible, what is the builder willing to give up to make the deal?  After this is all hammered out (and there are some that I've walked away from) the builder then has to try to make some money.  Who cares what the deck waterproofing consists of?  Who cares whether it's real wood or OSB?  As long as you can get it by the AHJ the cheaper the more money everybody makes, or at least doesn't lose money. Then after all this is done some woman on a city commission with a degree in Black Studies demands something more without any concern what it costs because she thinks "it looks better".


----------

