California prosecutors have brought a rare manslaughter charged against an architect for the substandard construction and design of a $11 million mansion. Albert Becker, 48, was arrested after a firefighter died in a blaze at the home, which was going to be the backdrop for a reality show called “Germany’s Next Model.”
The allegations are pretty shocking, including that Becker built the fireplaces using drywall and that one of the fireplaces actually vented inside of the house. Officials say that Becker told an inspector that the fireplaces were purely decorative. Here are the court documents.
He is charged with altering the house after the inspection and ignoring demands for changes in the construction. He is accused telling that inspector that there were no plans for fireplaces. Deputy District Attorney Sean Carney said that Becker “built an 18-foot fire trough designed for outdoors inside the home. It was a recipe for disaster.”
The case, however, could raise some interesting questions of the conversion of a negligent act into a criminal charge. There would seem little question over the negligence, including negligence per se. However, does this means that any negligence per se claim can become a manslaughter charge. The line has become murkier over time. The concept of criminal negligence and the expansion to manslaughter laws to cover acts like drunk driving has tended to converge with civil and criminal areas. Such negligence in construction, however, is quite common with builders cutting corners. Thousands of burns and deaths of citizens each year could be traced to such negligence. The question is when do such cases become criminal. Most are not criminalized.
The common law has historically made it difficult for firefighters and police officers to even sue civilly. Under the so-called Fireman’s Rule, courts after Gibson v. Leonard, 143 Ill. 182, 32 N.E. 182 (1892) barred policemen and firefighters from recovering. For example, the court in Carson v. Headrick, 900 S.W..2d 685 (Tenn. 1995) held:
“[W]e observe that the preservation of organized society requires the presence and protection of police officers. Situations requiring the presence of police, although commonplace and inevitable, are also routinely dangerous. Public policy considerations, as well as societal expectations, militate against allowing police officers to institute tort actions against a citizen for an injury resulting from a risk the officer is trained and hired to confront. Simply stated, societal policies do not support imposition of a duty of reasonable care upon a citizen calling for police assistance. Rather, public policy is served when citizens are encouraged to summon aid from police, regardless of their negligence, and are assured that the compensation for injuries sustained by police in the line of duty will be borne by the public as a whole. Accordingly, we conclude as a matter of public policy that a citizen owes no duty of reasonable care to police officers responding to that citizen’s call for assistance and join the majority of other jurisdictions who have reaffirmed the policemen and firemen’s rule on public policy grounds.”
The charges in the California case reflect a trend for greater civil and criminal liability in cases. Most past such cases however have often involved owner failing to warn firefighters of dangers or acting criminally in their pre-accident conduct.
The death of firefighter Glenn Allen in this case was a terrible and avoidable tragedy. The question is whether the courts will use the case to draw a more clear line of demarcation between civil and criminal conduct. We will be following the case closely.
Source: LA Times
Dredd,
Thanks for the pummeling. Feel comfortably naive declared. Or ignorant.
I thought outrage would suffice for “criminal negligence” (whatever that is) and calling up the lynch gang. Or better yet Obama’s plumbers.
Maybe I should see if Wikipedia has an article (or several) on rudiments of criminal law. But it’s easier to stay here to gape and blunder.
Thirsty? For knowledge? For ????.
oops, my previous comment was to my friend idealist707 …
Dredd,
If the architect disregarded the norms of the building code, would he not be responsible?
=======================================
Responsible for what? All these “what ifs” are typically creatures of statute.
But more than that, this case invokes criminal law where the prosecution is responsible for establishing every element of a crime. And as a great constitutional scholar, JT, as pointed out, unusual.
I quoted prosecution experts, in this very case, who say it was negligence.
Part of the same team, before reading him his Miranda warnings, elicited from him, among other things, that he did the questioned construction himself.
And, in those facts submitted by the prosecution, under penalty of perjury, are statements that in his testimony he did it to make sure it was better than usual.
Thus, there is absolutely no foundation in those submittals for murder or attempted murder charges.
To answer your question explicitly, yes, there are sanctions for building code violations, which vary from state to state, county to county, and city to city.
If you cite for me the relevant codes, which are, at most, usually misdemeanors like speeding tickets, I will respond.
This fact scenario, according to the expert fire inspector working for the prosecution, involve a collapse of a ceiling (probably weakened floor joists or floor trusses) which construction, according to that same prosecution testimony under oath, was all approved by the building inspectors. They go on to allege that the approved construction was later contaminated by construction that they had not approved, construction by a guy who was trying to do a better job that others could do on a movie set.
These prosecution charges are supported by allegations, not yet proven to a jury, which in the criminal context, the prosecution must prove – all of it – beyond a reasonable doubt.
The speculation in this thread heretofore, therefore, is bullshit.
Gimme shelter in the facts supporting the charges, not in what would inspire folks to sharpen the pitchforks my dear friend.
PS. Also, stay thirsty my friend. 😉
Haven’t seen anything yet about authorities looking up previous clients of this idiot Becker. Wonder if he’s pulled stuff like this before, and left other deathtraps behind him? Somebody needs to write to Germany!
bettykath,
I thought you folks had the same stuff we see in our studios when winter sports are discussed. It’s a kind of material which produces white flames and can be used indoors without outdoor venting. Can be contained in hardened glass.
This decorative fire would need venting at the top to draw the irritating fumes away, but no CO or CO2 problem, as I understand.
Don’t you have these fireplaces over there?
Dredd,
If the architect disregarded the norms of the building code, would he not be responsible? A fireman going into a building has these norms in the back of his head; a fire trap is one thing; a new mansion is another. Can’t see that policemen and firemen are comparable. The one deals with humans, the other with natural or unnatural fires in many, but predictable, conditions.
?????
Loviatar 1, February 20, 2012 at 11:16 am
@ Dredd,
I disagree with this statement:
“Architects, under these facts, would be at one end of the spectrum, the least culpable end”
Remember this was not a fire caused by a misplacement of a fireplace or an improper venting of an exhaust. This was a fire caused by willful design changes; this architect placed fireplaces in the house without proper venting and built of improper materials. This architect willfully designed a fire trough inside the house, the architect described above lied to inspectors and made changes to the plans after passing inspection. This fire was the result of willful acts not a result of bad training or inadvertent mistakes, culpability should be easily proven. Mistakes happen, poorly trained people do things they shouldn’t, however when lies are told and inspections are skirted we move from the realm of mistakes to the realm of criminality.
My opinion, along with the manslaughter charge he is lucky he wasn’t charge with attempted murder on the prospective tenants of the mansion.
=============================================
Hey, you probably wouldn’t make it on the jury.
The documents give no probable cause for an attempted murder:
The facts alleged involve negligence, not intent to harm, not “the result of willful acts” as you indicate, which would lead to a charge of some degree of murder or attempted murder.
My analysis is in accord with existing law, and as PT pointed out, a charge of this sort is unusual. A charge of murder would fail IMO. Whether the criminal charge will stand remains to be seen.
I hate ‘fake’ fireplaces anyway.
And I do not believe the manufacturers who say you do not need to vent a gas stove or fireplace to the outside. They actually sell these things all over the nation.
At some point, construction errors surely warrant criminal charges. Building a structure you know is likely to fall down or burn down with people inside it is as criminal as shooting into an occupied room. As always, the problem will be determining where the particular acts lie on the continuum from mere negligence to the criminal.
The building inspectors could also be liable depending on when the changes took place. Any building inspector who signed off on an inspection, a TCO (temporary certificate of occupancy) or a CO (certificate of occupancy) can be liable for deviations from building code.
IF the changes were made AFTER certificate of occupancy, then the architect and the builders involved (builders have to know building code, too) may be liable. Perhaps it’s a felony.
There’s an interesting carbon monoxide case in Aspen where a family of four died in a new home and the venting was incorrect.
In Colorado the death of a firefighter during the commission of a felony is First Degree Murder. But, is the wilful alteration and deviation from building code an ongoing felony?
This is interesting legal territory.
It’s possible for architects to be hired to design outside their area of expertise.
For example, an architect from the northeast was hired to design a building in the southwest. He specified, and the contractors built, a heating system based on oil. Oil heat is common in the northeast. It’s extremely rare in the southwest b/c of the cost of transporting the oil. The heating system was ripped out and replaced. (true story) In this case, safety was not issue. Money issues can be worked out.
This is the only way I can see the current story as negligence: the architect had never before designed a fireplace and fireplaces were not common to the area or he was from an area where fireplaces were not common. Even so, this is a weak argument. Where safety is involved it’s time to hire an expert if his own competence is lacking. How in the world did he get thru architecture school or get a license. Or maybe he didn’t!
If the contractor built the fireplace of combustible materials contrary to the architect’s drawings, the architect should be considered negligent in not overseeing the work of the contractor. However, if the architect specified a fireplace of regular drywall with an indoor vent, that’s a different story. If the fireplace was intended to be non-functioning, why did he even bother with a vent? Having a vent suggests that the fireplace was intended to be used. Every architect should know better. It seems to me that it would be more than “negligence” to do so as a deliberate act.
Not a lawyer, but common sense, at least common sense for me.
Anyway you look at it , the architect is responsible for the way the house was constructed. He should have known, even a decorative fireplace could possibly be used by unsuspecting ignorant individuals….. People do dumb things, you have to think of the possibility over the life of the structure…..
TalkinDog:
“Same difference as the architect.”
*************************
Maybe, but in your example it’s hard to prove it was foreseeable your kid would grow up to lead a murder cult no matter how bad a parent you were. In the case of the architect, it’s hard to imagine not knowing and understanding the inevitable flammability of fireplaces venting inside the house and built of drywall. It’s not even an apples and oranges comparison; it’s apples and cannonballs.
The child was the son of Charles Manson and at age twenty five sonny boy Manson killed nine people. Charles Senior is charged with manslaughter for siring and raising the boy. Same difference as the architect.
New this fall on NBC!
“Law & Order: Architectural Intent”
And here I thought that this sort of manslaughter charge only happened on “Law and Order”!
@ Dredd,
I disagree with this statement:
“Architects, under these facts, would be at one end of the spectrum, the least culpable end”
Remember this was not a fire caused by a misplacement of a fireplace or an improper venting of an exhaust. This was a fire caused by willful design changes; this architect placed fireplaces in the house without proper venting and built of improper materials. This architect willfully designed a fire trough inside the house, the architect described above lied to inspectors and made changes to the plans after passing inspection. This fire was the result of willful acts not a result of bad training or inadvertent mistakes, culpability should be easily proven. Mistakes happen, poorly trained people do things they shouldn’t, however when lies are told and inspections are skirted we move from the realm of mistakes to the realm of criminality.
My opinion, along with the manslaughter charge he is lucky he wasn’t charge with attempted murder on the prospective tenants of the mansion.
It took a hundred years in Virginia to finally get some protection for firemen and police injured on the negligently maintained shacks of some land owners. Finally in 2000, a statute was passed to permit recovery for negligence against owmers and occupiers. The rationale against the statute was assumption of the risks associated with their profession which never really made sense since most fire departments were volunteer when the rule was established. Police likewise do not assume negligently maintained premises in chasing bad guys. I have no idea why this law exists nor do I understand it’s rationale. The defense of assuption of the risk has always had venturesomenes as it basis as was required to be proven as an affirnative defense. The crazy Fireman’s Rule required neither.
If the law is going to change, it might be better to start with professionals, like doctors and others who have “robe knowledge”, i.e., they use funny words and procedures mere mortals do not use. Architects, under these facts, would be at one end of the spectrum, the least culpable end. At least as far as criminal conduct is concerned.