Kid Falls Into Septic Tank and Dies - H.I. Sued

[hausdok]

This one will have some of you scratching your head. A home inspector was sued along with half a dozen others in the tragic death of a 3-year old who fell through a septic tank lid. The family was awarded more than $21M.

The home inspector was the only one that had refused to settle out of court. His end of the award is what's left after all of the others' out-of-court settlements have been paid.

It must be a Massachusetts thing; septic systems are completely excluded from the scope of the inspection in most places. To read more, click here.

[Marc]

Yeah, but the Massachusetts and Louisiana SOP's both state that the home inspector 'is not required' or 'shall not be required' to inspect septic systems. That doesn't mean he can't. It might mean that the lack of a septic system disclaimer in the contract could be interpreted as meaning that it was indeed inspected.

Marc

[mgbinspect]

I find the entire thing frightening. There are more attorneys per ca pita in the US, than any other country. And, if someone has their mind set on suing you, they can easily find an attorney ready, willing and able to follow through, whether it is right or wrong. Justice doesn't always come out of the courtroom. We all know of too many cases where the system fell down miserably.

As a father of five, I feel for the parents who lost a child. I just can't help but wonder if the home inspector is anything more than a scapegoat. Very sad indeed.

[Scottpat]

Even though and item is excluded from any SOP it does not mean you can not be sued. Sure it will make it a little harder for the plaintiffs attorney to make the case, but with this involving the death of a child I would put my money on the plaintiffs winning.

With a shotgun lawsuit like this it is usually best to settle and get out of it. Nobody really wins in a case like this!

[John Kogel]

The story says the lid was defective. It flipped open when a firefighter rested his foot on it.

It was visible, in other words, and apparently it is not that unusual for kids to drown in septic tanks in that area.

[SNations]

"Fifty children a year die from falling into unsecured septic systems."

This just blows me away. If this is true, or even close, then it's a real eye opener. There are so many things that we focus on, like the minutia of the electrical system, that surely don't come anywhere close to being so dangerous that they kill 50 people a year.

I think that one thing this industry could use is better feedback as to what's really dangerous and where the injuries/deaths are occurring so that we can better focus our attention.

[Brandon Whitmore]

I don't inspect septic systems, exclude them from my report, and don't go stomping around trying to find out if lids are secure. I guess I could be sued still, which would be ridiculous in my opinion.

I'm curious as to whether the inspector was paid extra to inspect the septic system........

[Bill Kibbel]

It must be a Massachusetts thing; septic systems are completely excluded from the scope of the inspection in most places.

Many home inspectors also think they're experts in septic systems and include it as an additional service.

This just blows me away. If this is true, or even close, then it's a real eye opener. There are so many things that we focus on, like the minutia of the electrical system, that surely don't come anywhere close to being so dangerous that they kill 50 people a year.

If you look at the statistics of the causes of unintentional injuries and deaths in homes, 50 is a very small number. I'm not saying that anything more than 0 is acceptable. It'll just never be on the radar until items in the tens of thousands are eliminated.

We don't disclaim on-site waste systems. We bring in one of the top experts in the area to thoroughly test and inspect each one. It eliminates any liability.

[John Kogel]

I disclaim the septic system and recommend having it pumped and inspected.

I try to be accurate as to whether the lot has a septic system. It should be in the listing info, but I've seen errors there a few times.

If the house is on a sewer system, there's no mention of septic. Now I'm thinking an abandoned tank could be trouble, but that is way beyond the scope of a home inspection in my area.

If the lid is visible, which is rare, I will point it out "This looks like the lid to the septic tank". That's not inspection, and I don't call flushing a few toilets a septic inspection. I know there are inspectors who will add dye and so on.

I suspect the septic tanks where kids are drowning have plastic lids above ground. It sounds like there are a lot of defective or improperly latched lids. If it is accessible and a known hazard, then it may well be a home inspector's responsibility. This judge thinks it is, apparently.

[SNations]

This just blows me away. If this is true, or even close, then it's a real eye opener. There are so many things that we focus on, like the minutia of the electrical system, that surely don't come anywhere close to being so dangerous that they kill 50 people a year.

If you look at the statistics of the causes of unintentional injuries and deaths in homes, 50 is a very small number. I'm not saying that anything more than 0 is acceptable. It'll just never be on the radar until items in the tens of thousands are eliminated.

I'm not so sure of that. But even if it's true, to the larger point why isn't there more information passing around our profession regarding what those dangers are, because we should be concentrating more on them. Maybe we are, but I doubt it. I think we tend to concentrate on what we can see clearly, what we know for sure, and what is easy to detect.

I'm quite certain that everybody on this forum notes an illegal double tap on a circuit breaker. But do double taps cause 50 deaths a year? Maybe the problem is that I do not have even the slightest idea what the answer to that question is. All I know is that a double tap is wrong (in most cases).

[kurt]

There are all sorts of published statistics for accident rates and locations. Google it up.

Last time I checked, the big problem is stairs. After that, kitchen fires. Maybe the stats have changed by now.

[ghentjr]

Kibble does it the correct way. But as an added protection buffer the septic guy should bill and collect separately. If you collect and pay him as a sub it keeps you in the legal loop. That goes for any subs you bring on the job. If you collect the fee and then pay the sub you are open to any future actions.

[Marc]

This just blows me away. If this is true, or even close, then it's a real eye opener. There are so many things that we focus on, like the minutia of the electrical system, that surely don't come anywhere close to being so dangerous that they kill 50 people a year.

If you look at the statistics of the causes of unintentional injuries and deaths in homes, 50 is a very small number. I'm not saying that anything more than 0 is acceptable. It'll just never be on the radar until items in the tens of thousands are eliminated.

I'm not so sure of that. But even if it's true, to the larger point why isn't there more information passing around our profession regarding what those dangers are, because we should be concentrating more on them. Maybe we are, but I doubt it. I think we tend to concentrate on what we can see clearly, what we know for sure, and what is easy to detect.

I'm quite certain that everybody on this forum notes an illegal double tap on a circuit breaker. But do double taps cause 50 deaths a year? Maybe the problem is that I do not have even the slightest idea what the answer to that question is. All I know is that a double tap is wrong (in most cases).

Amending and refining the inspection process is an unending 'work in progress', both individually and across the profession. There's no better way to do it than right here on TIJ. It's cutting edge. There's nothing faster.

As an example, as a result of this thread, I added another item to the 'Exclusions' section of my contract: 'Individual sewer treatment plants'. I also fashioned some new boilerplate: An individual sewer treatment plant is installed. Inspecting it is beyond the scope of this home inspection so you should have a plumber do it.

Marc

[John Kogel]

Marc, up here, a normal plumber wouldn't go near a septic tank. A septic tank contractor will pump the tank and then do his inspection of the tank and field. They now have licensing for that here and there is a fair bit of liability.

[kurt]

Yeah, change it to septic contractor. Do it like Ghent says, have it be outside any of your involvement; separate contractor, don't process payment, keep entirely out of the loop.

[Nolan Kienitz]

In Texas they (homeowners w/septic systems) are supposed to have them inspected quarterly or on some schedule.

State had/has requirements and they pushed the responsibility down to the counties and related AHJs.

Of course there are legacy drain field systems and then the aerobic systems.

Official inspections of septic come from the companies who are licensed to install/maintain the systems.

There are courses offered for a 'septic certification' and many HIs take them and then claim they are the specialists for inspecting the systems ... as if they can see inside the tanks, pump them out, etc., etc..

I do not inspect septics and advise client to have local/authorized septic company provide inspection. Usually there is a list of inspections on a control panel label indicating the recurring inspections by a local company. I advise client to call them for details/history.

I do look for tank access lids and stability/security, but that is as far as I go.

[hausdok]

Hi,

I've never surveyed yards for tanks or other underground objects that could collapse; or, as in this case, open up and let a kid fall in. Why would I? I'm there to inspect the house, not the entire property and certainly not the stuff buried below grade. It's always been a tenet of this gig that stuff like sewer pipes and septic tanks below grade outside of the foundation walls aren't our purview because we can't see 'em and inspect 'em. This judge is trying to set precedent and say that it is. That's going too far as far as I'm concerned.

I sure hope this guy appeals that ruling and wins; otherwise we'll be saddled with one more useless thing to do. The next thing you know, we'll have some judge blaming an inspector for not telling folks about ubiquitous mold in the air around us and awarding millions of bucks for essentially nothing.

$21M is a tall award; wonder if the lawyers will start oozing out of the woodwork with post cards going to to new homeowners now wanting to know if their inspector ever looked at the septic system; and, if he/she didn't soliciting folks to be litigation clients.

I'm interested in the waste line up to the point where it passes through/under the foundation wall. I'm interested in the retaining walls that keep the ground stable around the house. I'm interested in good drainage around the house. I'm interested in other stuff like flat work that's installed around the house and which can directly effect the house if it's placed so that it's draining toward the house, but walking around a yard stomping on the ground looking for bugaboos isn't what I do.

For me it's always been real simple. Ask if the house is on sewer or septic. If the answer is septic, tell 'em that I don't inspect those systems and inform them that the bank is going to want proof that the system has been pumped out and that when they have that done they should have the septic system pro inspect the system - whatever that entails. I'm strictly hands off those systems.

Now, if it's a case of something being in plain view, such as the holding tank and lift pumps I saw a few weeks ago, it's going to go in the report and I'm going to tell 'em to get a specialist out to look at it 'cuz I don't do those, but I just don't see the utility in stomping around trying to find something else to comment on that has nothing to do with a home inspection.

There are lots of things we don't know about this case. We don't know if this inspector mentioned in his contract that septic systems are excluded or whether he reported the system as being in good shape in his report. If he made any kind of comment about the septic system, other than to disclaim it, he probably shot himself in the foot; however, if he specifically excluded it and advised them to have a septic guy come out and service the inspection, I think this judge was either drunk, nuts or both.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

[allseason]

Marc,

Call it an "On Site Wastewater Treatment System" rather than a treatment plant as most systems use no machinery at all and rely on gravity only.

[Erby]

================

This property is reported to have a septic system. I don't know. I don't look for septic systems. In accordance with home inspection standards of practice, septic systems are excluded from the inspection. I don't possess the necessary equipment (pump truck) to properly empty the tank and inspect it. I recommend that you have the septic system fully inspected by a qualified septic system technician B 4 U Close. Septic systems are simple to maintain but expensive to fix. For more information on septic systems on the internet see:

US EPA Onsite Wastewater Systems

State of Kentucky Onsite Wastewater Program

Kentucky Onsite Wastewater Association

I also recommend that you consult with the local county health department to see what information they have on the septic system, as the health department regulates and oversees local septic systems.

================

[John Dirks Jr]

I don't inspect septic systems. I do inspect the entire lot area and look for general safety hazards which might include septic lids, storm drain lids and stuff like that. Big trees, especially dead, unhealthy or healthy with dead branches are always in my sites. I hear about people, (its usually a kid) getting killed by falling branches a couple of times a year around here.

I bet the idea to hold the inspector liable had to do with lack to identify a general safety hazard and not with the lack of inspecting a septic system.

I always try to identify what type of waste disposal is associated with the property. The idea of disclaiming it is kind of interesting because the SOP does not even require that you identify public or private utilities of water supply or waste disposal.

[Marc]

The idea of disclaiming it is kind of interesting because the SOP does not even require that you identify public or private utilities of water supply or waste disposal.

The lack of a requirement doesn't do much. A prohibition does, and there's none, hence the disclaimer.

What do you think?

Marc

[John Dirks Jr]

The idea of disclaiming it is kind of interesting because the SOP does not even require that you identify public or private utilities of water supply or waste disposal.

The lack of a requirement doesn't do much. A prohibition does, and there's none, hence the disclaimer.

What do you think?

Marc

Yes, that angle makes sense.

But again, I think the dude got sued for failing to report on a general safety hazard, not failure to inspect the septic system.

[Tom Raymond]

The dude got sued because the lawyer thought the more parties involved the bigger his pay day.

I hope the plaintiffs realize they scarred his (the HI) life as badly as this tragedy scarred theirs.

[kurt]

That's right. When it's ugly, the noose is large.....there's got to be lots of pockets.

There, but for the grace of fate, go us all. Anything can happen to anybody.

[SNations]

If you look at the statistics of the causes of unintentional injuries and deaths in homes, 50 is a very small number. I'm not saying that anything more than 0 is acceptable. It'll just never be on the radar until items in the tens of thousands are eliminated.

I don't know how things get on the radar, but I'm cynical enough to know that things don't get on the radar just because they deserve to be there. Take decks, for example.

I think we all take deck safety seriously, looking at ledger board attachment and that sort of thing. There's even a deck safety awareness week, so it's definitely on the radar.

So I looked up information from the North American Deck and Railing Association. Their website says that from 2000-2008 "at least" 30 deaths occurred from deck collapse. Let's assume the real number is 50% higher, or 45. And that's over a nine year span, which comes to an average of 5 a year. So that would make septic systems 10 times more deadly than decks.

I would wager that last week, if you asked 1,000 HI's which was more deadly -- decks or septic systems -- at least 999 would have said decks. And if you had asked them which of these was 10 times more deadly than the other the response would have been unanimous for decks. But they all would have been wrong. (As a caveat, I'm just taking it as gospel that the 50/year figure is right. Maybe, maybe not. Maybe I should look that up.)

Things get on the radar for lots of reasons, in all professions and areas of interest. But we shouldn't assume that because something is on the radar that it actually deserves to be there. We need to double check the data and our assumptions on a regular basis.

I think our profession would be well served by taking a good look at what we really think is important on a more regular basis and in a systemic manner.