Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 44 replies
  • Subscribers 41 subscribers
  • Views 6226 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

Implications of the term 'recommended' in 7671

Farmboy

In this video: https://youtu.be/aoWuEnvLa3I the term 'recommended' in 7671 is taken to mean that doing nothing is not an option, so applying that to AFDDs means that we have to install them on socket ccts up to 32As in all premises, not just those defined in 7671, unless we can show that AFDDs are not required or their absence is not a problem.

So do you agree with the interpretation and its implication(s)?

F

Parents
  • 0

    If there is any liability connected to not following the recommendation, it would be in negligence.

    To establish negligence, 3 things have to be proved (beyond reasonable doubt). Let's not confuse them.

    (1) A duty of care. I would have said that this is never at issue, but somebody once tried to sue me for somebody else's work, so almost never.

    (2) Causation. The lack of AFDD caused the loss; but for their lack, the loss would not have occurred. That's the first course in the lawyers' bean feast.

    (3) Breach of the standard of care. So would a reasonable, responsible body of professional electricians/electrical engineers feel obliged to follow the recommendation? Note that is not all electricians, or even the majority, but enough to mean that the omission of AFDDs lies within the acceptable range of practice.

    So in answer to the OP, no!

Reply
  • 0

    If there is any liability connected to not following the recommendation, it would be in negligence.

    To establish negligence, 3 things have to be proved (beyond reasonable doubt). Let's not confuse them.

    (1) A duty of care. I would have said that this is never at issue, but somebody once tried to sue me for somebody else's work, so almost never.

    (2) Causation. The lack of AFDD caused the loss; but for their lack, the loss would not have occurred. That's the first course in the lawyers' bean feast.

    (3) Breach of the standard of care. So would a reasonable, responsible body of professional electricians/electrical engineers feel obliged to follow the recommendation? Note that is not all electricians, or even the majority, but enough to mean that the omission of AFDDs lies within the acceptable range of practice.

    So in answer to the OP, no!

Children

Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Joining EngX lets you personalise your experience so you stay up to date on the topics that interest you, plus you’ll be able to make connections who are looking to collaborate, exchange ideas and more.

Join us Not now

Community Rules & Guidelines