Handrails

[David C. Macy]

How would your report the railing in the picture?

In a recent issue of handyman magazine one of the articles was 5 common code violations.

One of them pertained to railings with out returns.

I have never called out this as a safety concern. According to this article I should.

How are other inspectors reporting on this issue.

When was this a code?

Thanks

[Keith R. Braun]

I would report this handrail as satisfactory. Based on the photo, it is at the proper height, securely mounted, and able to be grasped to prevent trips and falls. I don't think there would be any other considerations.

[David C. Macy]

Here is what the article states.

Codes require handrails to have returns. Meaning they need to turn at the end at the wall.

Returns keep items such as sleeves and purse straps from getting caught on the ends causing a fall.


I can see it now. Some clod gets hurt I get sued.

[Larry D. Kage]

Originally Posted by dmacy

In a recent issue of handyman magazine one of the articles was 5 common code violations.

When was this a code?

Thanks

If you think it is a safety hazard (at this point, I don't) for your client, write it up as such but I suggest staying away from using code.

[Richard A. Hetzel]

The requirement for returns is a relatively recent addition to the building codes governing handrails, al least in some areas. The pictured handrail may have been perfectly legal when installed, and therefore cannot be considered a code violation.

[Humberto Carvajal]

This may be useful for you. It's from the 2003 IRC.

2003 IRC;
311.5.6.2 Continuity.
Handrails for stairways shall be continuous for the full length of the flight, from a point directly above the top riser of the flight to a point directly above lowest riser of the flight. Handrail ends shall be returned or shall terminate in newel posts or safety terminals. Handrails adjacent to a wall shall have a space of not less than 1 1/2 inch (38 mm) between the wall and the handrails.

Exceptions:

1. Handrails shall be permitted to be interrupted by a newel post at the turn.

2. The use of a volute, "TURNOUT", starting easing or starting newel shall be allowed over the lowest tread.

[W. Michael Chris]

Originally Posted by lkage

If you think it is a safety hazard (at this point, I don't) for your client, write it up as such but I suggest staying away from using code.

I agree with Larry, if you think it's a safety hazard call it out . . .

Originally Posted by Richard A. Hetzel

The requirement for returns is a relatively recent addition to the building codes governing handrails, al least in some areas. The pictured handrail may have been perfectly legal when installed, and therefore cannot be considered a code violation.

. . . and I agree with Richard, more than likely perfectly legal when installed . . . I would most likely call it out as a safety concern not hazard, and recommend installation of rail return . . . (in fact I should add this to my reports, thanks) . . . hope this helps.

[Marcel R. Cyr]

I can't quite see where a wall handrail return would be a safety hazard or concern in an existing home such as David has shown us.

I think the riser height and the tread width would concern me more especially with those metal nosing's.

I have included an excerpt from a report as I note it.


The client is advised that all buildings older than brand new are likely to have building code violations. Numerous changes are made to codes every year, and the older the building, the greater the possibility of deviation from modern standards.

If one is more comfortable in noting the concern, so be it.

Concerns are one thing, but I would stay away from quoting Codes.

Marcel






</IMG></IMG>

[David P. Valley]

Residential handrails must return to the wall or terminate in a balluster or post at each end. But I don't write these up. If some dim wit gets their sleeve caught onto one of these and gets injured in any way, good luck trying to sue me for not reporting it.

http://www.kitsapgov.com/dcd/brochures/67.pdf

[tdietrich1]

IMHO,

I would comment. Not so much about sleeves or purses, but I have seen these handrails terminate to an angle. An angle that is decorative at the adult viewing level. At a child's level, it's a sharp edge sometimes waiting for a brow to open.

The photo even seems to show an edge that a small child me 'bonk' themselves on.

tom

[Richard A. Hetzel]

The client is advised that all buildings older than brand new are likely to have building code violations. Numerous changes are made to codes every year, and the older the building, the greater the possibility of deviation from modern standards.

I'd be more comfortable if the word "violations" were changed to something like "deviations", because no code requires older buildings to be brought up to current standards except for a very few exceptions such as smoke detectors. They technically are not "violations".

"The client is advised that older buildings may legally deviate from current building codes in some areas, and may therefore not meet modern standards. The older the building, the greater the likelihood of such deviations."

How's that? I'm not exactly happy with it.

[Marcel R. Cyr]

Thanks Richard;

The client is advised that all buildings older than brand new are likely to have building code violations.
Code violations here would be meant to compare with today's new construction.

Numerous changes are made to codes every year, and the older the building, the greater the possibility of deviation from modern standards.

Marcel

[Erby Crofutt]

Just for your knowledge.

http://b4uclose.tripod.com/Reports/s...yrules2006.pdf

From the Stairway Manufacturer's Association

[Richard A. Hetzel]

There is no question that if the pictured handrail were built today, it would have required returns. However, it is highly likely that when the pictured handrail was built, it was completely legal. The requirement for returns is a fairly recent one. Many codes in many places in the past had no such requirement. Therefore, any use of the word "violation" is improper and inaccurate. Building codes are essentially not retroactive. The pictured handrail is in no way a "violation". At most, from the standpoint of a house inspector, it is a "safety concern" and might be pointed out as such, and that would be best for the credibility of the inspector.

[Ian Gills]

Wahey a three light ground tester! Must be a professional source!