# Child falls through second story stairwell



## mark handler (Apr 11, 2015)

Child falls through second story stairwell

The parents of a 3-year-old who fell from a second story stairwell in Tacoma are questioning why the property management company isn't required to add new safety features to the complex

http://www.king5.com/story/news/local/tacoma/2015/04/11/child-falls-through-second-story-stairwell/25621351/







TACOMA, Wash. --The parents of a three-year-old girl who fell from a second story stairwell in Tacoma are questioning why the property management company isn't required to add new safety features to the complex.

The accident happened Thursday as the family was leaving the apartment, which they had just moved into days before.

Marco Castro said his daughter, Sophia, ran ahead of him and his wife as they were locking up and tripped, falling through the railing all the way to the ground.

She was taken to the hospital and put on a stretcher.

Surprisingly, she didn't break any bones, but she did suffer a concussion.

"It was just a very scary experience to see," Castro said. "You never think it is going to happen to you until it happens."

Castro said his neighbors have complained before about the space between the rail, but his property manager, Dobler Management, hasn't made any changes and he thinks they should.

Kathryn Dobler, a broker for the company, told KING 5 she was relieved Sophia was okay.

She added that there is nothing wrong with the building.

"This is an older building and they are iron rods, but they are up to code," Dobler said. "I would love to put something up but I can't."

David Johnson, a building official for the City of Tacoma, says it's unlikely a stairwell like the one at Castro's unit would be approved today, but Tacoma only requires the building comply with safety regulations at the time of construction.

The Rainier Garden Apartments were built in the 1960s. So any updated recommendations wouldn't apply.

That is unless the property owner makes alterations to the building, for instance, like adding safety features to Castro's unit.

Then, Johnson said the whole building would have to be updated.

Dobler said that would be too expensive.

It's a common issue in older buildings.

"I don't know how that is safe," Castro said.

Dobler said she is more than willing to compromise and let Marco add some safety features himself, which is exactly what Castro plans to do.


----------



## fatboy (Apr 11, 2015)

I would think from the liability standpoint the management company would make some improvement on the guards. I had a contractor the merely tack welded onto the existing metal structure, doesn't look to bad, and vastly more safe.

But then, if they make improvements now, they'll get sued because they are acknowledging that the current condition is unsafe..........no win.

Sad


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Apr 11, 2015)

Watch your kids, dumba55.

Brent.


----------



## jar546 (Apr 11, 2015)

MASSDRIVER said:
			
		

> Watch your kids, dumba55.Brent.


Ignorance is bliss.  What a dumba55 comment.


----------



## cda (Apr 11, 2015)

Owner;;

"""This is an older building and they are iron rods, but they are up to code," Dobler said. "I would love to put something up but I can't.""""

Huh???

BO;;;

""Then, Johnson said the whole building would have to be updated.""

Double HUH????


----------



## ICE (Apr 11, 2015)

jar546 said:
			
		

> Ignorance is bliss.  What a dumba55 comment.


And if there was no guard at all would you agree that the parents are derelict?  Well take a look at the guard and tell me that the parents aren't derelict.

It is absolutely the fault of the parents that the child fell.  It is absolutely the fault of the owner that the child could fall.  It is absolutely the fault of the Code that the condition is allowed to persist.

And don't hand me bullshlt about retroactive codes being a lousy idea.  It is being done to get wheelchairs into buildings at an enormous cost yet nothing is done to keep kids from falling out of buildings at a tragic cost.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Apr 11, 2015)

jar546 said:
			
		

> Ignorance is bliss.  What a dumba55 comment.


Really? Who are you accusing of ignorance?

Those parents are living in a place with a known condition that could injure their kid. They see it every day, multiple times, but either don't move somewhere safer, or don't think to restrain their toddler. The ONLY time that safety occurred to them was when little Raul disappeared over the edge.

That is ignorance, stupidity, and dumba55ery.

I bet they wouldn't let the little bugger eater run across Interstate 5.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be a safer rail. But hell, when it ain't there, best herd up yer young'uns.

So there.  

Brent.


----------



## ICE (Apr 11, 2015)

Looking at the picture it seems to me that the metalwork is too new to be from the 1960s.  It looks like it was built last week, open risers and all.


----------



## mark handler (Apr 11, 2015)

ICE said:
			
		

> Looking at the picture it seems to me that the metalwork is too new to be from the 1960s.  It looks like it was built last week, open risers and all.


Thats what I thought, but it is the one in the quoted news story


----------



## fatboy (Apr 11, 2015)

Agreed, looks to good to be 55 years old. I'm going to do some checking, but assuming that is a 42" guard, that's 21" O.C., and that works in industrial now, but that was OK on 1960?


----------



## RJJ (Apr 12, 2015)

Have to agree the iron looks new. Codes will not protect from dumb, parents need to be aware of where the children are and building owners need to strive to make sure their buildings are safe. When the lawyers and insurance company get done I am sure there will be a correction.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Apr 13, 2015)

18" max I believe was the older codes. When? I don't have that info.

The IFC does provide a path to have the balusters installed.

1101.1 Scope.

The provisions of this chapter shall apply to existing buildings constructed prior to the adoption of this code.

1101.2 Intent.

The intent of this chapter is to provide a minimum degree of fire and life safety to persons occupying existing buildings by providing minimum construction requirements where such existing buildings do not comply with the minimum requirements of the International Building Code.

1101.3 Permits.

Permits shall be required as set forth in Sections 105.6 and 105.7 and the International Building Code.

1101.4 Owner notification.

When a building is found to be in noncompliance with this chapter, the fire code official shall duly notify the owner of the building. Upon receipt of such notice, the owner shall, subject to the following time limits, take necessary actions to comply with the provisions of this chapter.

You have a news report of a child falling through and being injured.

1104.6 Guards.

Guards complying with this section shall be provided at the open sides of means of egress that are more than 30 inches (762 mm) above the floor or grade below.

1104.6.1 Height of guards.

Guards shall form a protective barrier not less than 42 inches (1067 mm) high.

Exceptions:

1.	Existing guards on the open side of stairs shall be not less than 30 inches (760 mm) high.

2.	Existing guards within dwelling units shall be not less than 36 inches (910 mm) high.

3.	Existing guards in assembly seating areas.

1104.6.2 Opening limitations.

Open guards shall have balusters or ornamental patterns such that a 6-inch-diameter (152 mm) sphere cannot pass through any opening up to a height of 34 inches (864 mm).

Exceptions:

1.	At elevated walking surfaces for access to, and use of, electrical, mechanical or plumbing systems or equipment, guards shall have balusters or be of solid materials such that a sphere with a diameter of 21 inches (533 mm) cannot pass through any opening.

2.	In occupancies in Group I-3, F, H or S, the clear distance between intermediate rails measured at right angles to the rails shall not exceed 21 inches (533 mm).

3.	Approved existing open guards.  Nobody in their right mind would approve these in an apartment complex


----------



## jdfruit (Apr 13, 2015)

Tacoma is an old "UBC" city; guards (old "guardrails) are required by UBC editions up to 1982 to have openings no larger than 9" between members. The BO needs to enforce at least what was required by "code of the day". I agree with ICE, that rail and stair system does not look to be 50+ years old. Most likely the railing is required to have openings that will not allow a 6" diameter sphere to pass through at any location. Forensic necessary, and the BO needs to wake up.


----------



## conarb (Apr 13, 2015)

\ said:
			
		

> The IFC does provide a path to have the balusters installed.


But the IFC is not a building code, as I understand it the AHJ would have to have adopted the IFC in order for it to be effective, even if they did adopt it then the question of a conflict of codes comes up, it's not always the most restrictive that applies.  *I guess it could fall under Chapters 10 or 11.*


----------



## cda (Apr 13, 2015)

Maybe the stairs were replaced at some point in time??

Without a permit or inspections????


----------



## fatboy (Apr 13, 2015)

1961 UBC required a guardrail around shaft enclosure at least 36" high. No opening limitations mentioned. 1973 UBC required guardrails in locations as we know now, 42" and openings of 9".

Be nice to know were in between it started to be addressed.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Apr 13, 2015)

conarb said:
			
		

> But the IFC is not a building code, as I understand it the AHJ would have to have adopted the IFC in order for it to be effective, even if they did adopt it then the question of a conflict of codes comes up, it's not always the most restrictive that applies.  *I guess it could fall under Chapters 10 or 11.*


The IFC is adopted in the state of Washington and you are correct it is more of a maintenance code and that is why I quoted that section

IBC

[A] 116.3 Notice.

If an unsafe condition is found, the building official shall serve on the owner, agent or person in control of the structure, a written notice that describes the condition deemed unsafe and specifies the required repairs or improvements to be made to abate the unsafe condition, or that requires the unsafe structure to be demolished within a stipulated time. Such notice shall require the person thus notified to declare immediately to the building official acceptance or rejection of the terms of the order.

However it does not need to be adopted to use the portions I quoted since it is referenced

 [A] 102.6 Existing structures.

The legal occupancy of any structure existing on the date of adoption of this code shall be permitted to continue without change, except as is specifically covered in this code, the International Property Maintenance Code or the International Fire Code, or as is deemed necessary by the building official for the general safety and welfare of the occupants and the public.


----------



## tmurray (Apr 14, 2015)

Our code generally does not allow retroactivity as well, with one exception; where there poses a significant risk to life safety. Generally, we will look into cases like this and try to evaluate the risk versus the cost to make it compliant.


----------



## steveray (Apr 14, 2015)

"Apparently you ain't parents.".....Eminem....It would be interesting to see where this goes lawsuit wise. Whether the building owner had a duty or the BO/FM did, or it was just an unfortunate situation.


----------



## ICE (Apr 14, 2015)

tmurray said:
			
		

> Our code generally does not allow retroactivity as well, with one exception; where there poses a significant risk to life safety. Generally, we will look into cases like this and try to evaluate the risk versus the cost to make it compliant.


If I were tasked with making a decision about a life safety risk I doubt that cost would play a significant part in the process.  It's just dumb luck that the toddler that fell off the landing wasn't killed.  Everybody involved should get a week in jail.


----------



## cda (Apr 14, 2015)

conarb said:
			
		

> But the IFC is not a building code, as I understand it the AHJ would have to have adopted the IFC in order for it to be effective, even if they did adopt it then the question of a conflict of codes comes up, it's not always the most restrictive that applies.  *I guess it could fall under Chapters 10 or 11.*


Yes it is, there are alot of "process/ uses" in the IFC that are required to be built into new buildings.

Yes it is best to adopt it, but also referenced in IBC


----------



## JBI (Apr 14, 2015)

Best maintained 50+ year old metal stair assembly I've ever seen... I'm guessing it was replaced, obviously without a permit.

As far s a toddlers ability to slip away from his/her parents, those who don't have children would jump to blame the parents. Those who have children have jumped to save their child, probably more than once.

Building managers tend to watch the bottom line more than the realities of this type of preventable near-tragedy.


----------



## conarb (Apr 14, 2015)

JBI said:
			
		

> Best maintained 50+ year old metal stair assembly I've ever seen... I'm guessing it was replaced, obviously without a permit. As far s a toddlers ability to slip away from his/her parents, those who don't have children would jump to blame the parents. Those who have children have jumped to save their child, probably more than once.
> 
> Building managers tend to watch the bottom line more than the realities of this type of preventable near-tragedy.





> The Rainier Garden Apartments were built in the 1960s. So any updated recommendations wouldn't apply.


That building doesn't look like anything we built in the 60s, it has a machine dash finish on the stucco, hand dash finishes were common in the 20s and 30s on high-end work, after the war codes required three-coat stucco so dashes went out of style, machine dashes came around in the 70s but were rare and only high-end.  If the project was built in the 60s I'd venture to guess it underwent a substantial remodel at some point.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Apr 14, 2015)

JBI said:
			
		

> Best maintained 50+ year old metal stair assembly I've ever seen... I'm guessing it was replaced, obviously without a permit. As far s a toddlers ability to slip away from his/her parents, those who don't have children would jump to blame the parents. Those who have children have jumped to save their child, probably more than once.
> 
> Building managers tend to watch the bottom line more than the realities of this type of preventable near-tragedy.


The property owners are not blameless.

The parents certainly are not blameless.

For the parents to lay blame at the feet of others is lame. As I said, if they are clueless that the kid could bolt right off the end of the landing then they are either stupid, ignorant, negligent, or some combination thereof. Not even arguable. Now someone needs to fix the rail.

Brent.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Apr 14, 2015)

AND, *if* there was a permit and inspection, there's an inspector that gets a bite of that sammich as well.

Brent.


----------



## FM William Burns (Apr 14, 2015)

> metalwork is too new to be from the 1960s


If that stair is 50 years old I'll retire tomorrow!  The stucco and fixtures have been updated also.  The owner will be held liable too in Merica and both parents and building owner who rents to families will share in this event.......... that's how it will pan out.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Apr 14, 2015)

http://doblermanagement.com/properties/index.php?propertyid=127&name2=rainier_garden

seems like all the other railing comply s in the photos


----------



## Paul Sweet (Apr 17, 2015)

Just eyeballing it the spacing looks closer to 6" than 4".  I'm not sure that the railings don't look 42" high either.


----------

