# COMPANION SEAT



## Hien NGUYEN (Mar 25, 2019)

I am working on an old theater where they need ada spots.
My boss said every ada spot needs a companion seat.
I looked all over cbc and cannot find such rqmt. I knew IF you provide companion seat then certain rqmts will apply, but help me, is there a rqmt to have 1 companion seat per ada spot ? Thx


----------



## mtlogcabin (Mar 25, 2019)

2012 IBC

1108.2.3 Companion seats.
At least one companion seat shall be provided for each wheelchair space required by Sections 1108.2.2.1 through 1108.2.2.3.

1004.4 Fixed seating.
For areas having fixed seats and aisles, the occupant load shall be determined by the number of fixed seats installed therein. The occupant load for areas in which fixed seating is not installed, such as waiting spaces, shall be determined in accordance with Section 1004.1.2 and added to the number of fixed seats.
The occupant load of wheelchair spaces and the associated companion seat shall be based on one occupant for each wheelchair space and one occupant for the associated companion seat provided in accordance with Section 1108.2.3.


----------



## mark handler (Mar 27, 2019)

ADASAD 2010
802.3 Companion Seats. Companion seats shall comply with 802.3.

802.3.1 Alignment. In row seating, companion seats shall be located to provide shoulder alignment with adjacent wheelchair spaces. The shoulder alignment point of the wheelchair space shall be measured 36 inches (915 mm) from the front of the wheelchair space. The floor surface of the companion seat shall be at the same elevation as the floor surface of the wheelchair space.

802.3.2 Type. Companion seats shall be equivalent in size, quality, comfort, and amenities to the seating in the immediate area. Companion seats shall be permitted to be movable.


----------



## Yikes (Mar 29, 2019)

ADAS 221.3:  
221.3 Companion Seats.  At least one companion seat complying with 802.3 shall be provided for each 
wheelchair space required by 221.2.1.​
In California's code, it was further modified as follows:
11B-221.3 Companion seats. At least one companion seat complying with _Section 11B_-802.3 shall be provided _immediately adjacent to_ each wheelchair space required by Section _11B_-221.2.1.​
It appears that the ADA version implies a 1:1 ratio, but in California's attempt to add an adjacency requirement, their wording allows a scenario in which one companion seat can sit between and serve two wheelchair spaces.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Mar 29, 2019)

Yikes said:


> but in California's attempt to add an adjacency requirement, their wording allows a scenario in which one companion seat can sit between and serve two wheelchair spaces.


That is not the way I read it. 
1 companion seat to each wheel chair space.
It is a simple one to one ratio. CA is just clarifying you can not count the seat in front or to the rear or across the aisle as the companion seat.


----------



## ADAguy (Mar 29, 2019)

The "key word" here is "each".


----------



## Yikes (Apr 1, 2019)

W = wheelchair space,  C = Companion space

Here's what "at least one companion seat... for each wheelchair space" looks like: WCWC
For= posessive.  The C exists FOR the W.

Here's what "at least one companion seat... immediately adjacent to each wheelchair space" looks like: WCW
Adjacent to = spatial proximity, but not necessarily possessive.  At least one C exists next to each W.

I live immediately adjacent to my neighbor, but that doesn't necessitate that I live for my neighbor.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Apr 1, 2019)

When W1 companion uses C where does W2 companion sit? On the lap of W1's companion in the only C seat provided?

Remember ADA is about achieving equality. How does not providing an equal amount of companion seats for the amount of wheelchair spaces provided achieve equality?


----------



## tmurray (Apr 2, 2019)

I would agree with Yikes on this one. Providing one companion seat in the middle of two wheelchair space meets the wording of the code. 

Clearly the intent is to provide a one to one ratio, but the code is poorly worded. Good candidate for a code change request.


----------



## ADAguy (Apr 2, 2019)

CA has it right Tmurray


----------



## tmurray (Apr 2, 2019)

Do you have the plain meaning rule there?

Critical to this rule is the understanding of the difference between first reading interpretation and post reading interpretation. 

First reading interpretation is when we interpret a section alone, with no context. The "Plain Meaning Rule" means that IF it is possible to derive a meaning at this stage, it is legally binding. Courts are expressly forbidden from performing a post reading interpretation.

Post reading interpretation is where you cannot interpret the section in isolation. We are then, and only then, permitted to interpret it in relation to the remainder of the document.

If the Plain Meaning Rule is in effect, Yikes has the interpretation that the courts must use. The post reading interpretation would be irrelevant.

This originated in British courts, so it may or may no have been adopted by use by the US. It has been adopted by Canada


----------

