Stairway to ????

[Tom Yeager]

What are your thoughts on this situation? I don't like the "no guardrail" aspect. House was built in 1978. Is this considered a walk off? The top portion was definitely modified since original construction. Walking around up there gave me vertigo, wouldn't want to think about children playing up there. Thoughts, comments, opinions? Be nice. This is my first post since I joined you two weeks ago!

[Kenton H. Shepard, CMI]

Welcome, Tom!
It's a danger not only to children, but to adults too. Both the unprotected area at the top and the lack of a barrier along the main staircase are safety issues and should be called out as such.

[Douglas Cossar]

What Kenton said!!!!! Big trime!
Cheers

[Erby Crofutt]

No big deal on reporting.

Just tell them it needs a guard rail for safety to prevent falls.

[Michael R. Boyett]

And newer construction methods would have the existing handrail 'returning' to the wall to prevent a catch hazard.

[Jeffrey R. Pope]

Completely unacceptable. . .

[Michael W. Gault]

Originally Posted by tyeager

What are your thoughts on this situation? I don't like the "no guardrail" aspect. House was built in 1978. Is this considered a walk off? The top portion was definitely modified since original construction. Walking around up there gave me vertigo, wouldn't want to think about children playing up there. Thoughts, comments, opinions? Be nice. This is my first post since I joined you two weeks ago!

I'd be willing to bet there's been an accident or two (originating at the top of these stairs) since 1978...

[Richard A. Hetzel]

"The stair, without guardrails at the top or on the side, and without the handrail returning to the wall at top and bottom, may have been code-compliant when it was built, but codes and safety standards have changed. Guardrails at the top and side of the stair, and handrails returned to the wall at top and bottom, are the current standards, and consideration should be given to upgrading these safety issues to current standards."

Just a non-inspector's attempt at a clause to cover these issues. Use it if you wish.

[W. Michael Chris]

Tom - First, welcome to the board . . . you'll find us to be most helpful here . . . most likely the owner if asked would state: "the kids have only fallen once or twice" (think I remember a post from Russel Ray with similar words) - agree with most post above, but I work very hard in my narratives to not use the word 'code' or 'code violation' / 'code compliant', etc., I'm not a code inspector.
Good luck and again Welcome.

[Jeffrey R. Pope]

Originally Posted by Richard A. Hetzel

"The stair, without guardrails at the top or on the side, and without the handrail returning to the wall at top and bottom, may have been code-compliant when it was built

Guards and rails have been requirements since the inception of building codes. This has never been "allowed."

[Tom Yeager]

Thanx, ya'll! Here is how it ended up:
"Safety Concern - Guardrails are not installed at two hazardous areas of the staircase, an unprotected area at the top, and along the main staircase. These are significant safety concerns. Recommend upgrading these safety issues to current standards."

[Richard A. Hetzel]

Key words: "...may have been..."

And some jurisdictions didn't even have building codes back then.

[Richard A. Hetzel]

Originally Posted by tyeager

Thanx, ya'll! Here is how it ended up:
"Safety Concern - Guardrails are not installed at two hazardous areas of the staircase, an unprotected area at the top, and along the main staircase. These are significant safety concerns. Recommend upgrading these safety issues to current standards."

That pretty much covers it.