by Thom Zaremba, shareholder at Roetzel & Andress
In my last three-part blog, we looked at how the building codes might use a new test standard, ASTM F3561, in combination with a glass industry proposal to make our school buildings safer from active shooters. After they were published, a reader asked me why I was sure architects and specifiers would use the standard. I decided to try to answer that question.
To answer it, we must first explore what is commonly known as the “standard of care.” Whether a doctor, a lawyer, an architect, a specifier or an engineer, everyone practicing a profession must act by a “standard of care.” But what does that mean?
“Standard of care” is a legal term. It’s used by the courts to help determine fault. When something fails, or someone is injured, the courts will apply a “standard of care” to determine whether the failure or injury resulted from negligence and, if so, whether the negligent party should be held responsible for injuries proximately caused by that negligence.
How does that apply to building design? To comply with their standard of care, architects who design buildings and specify the materials used to build them are obligated to exercise reasonable care in exercising their professional judgment to meet the requirements of their clients while conforming to applicable laws and regulations. If they fail to do so, they may be held liable for damages proximately caused by their professional negligence.
What does all this have to do with adopting a new test standard by the building codes? When a building somehow fails, or an injury occurs, proof of building code compliance can be determinative when the architect’s or specifier’s professional judgment is questioned.
When building codes adopt a test standard, materials used in a project that complies with the standard can be used as evidence that an architect or specifier exercised reasonable care in exercising his or her professional judgment. However, if the materials have not been tested or do not comply with a test standard, that can also be used to establish that reasonable care was not exercised.
It is important to note here that a simple error in judgment is not necessarily evidence of professional negligence. Mistakes happen all the time in all aspects of life. Perfection is not the standard of care applicable to architects or specifiers. However, compliance or non-compliance with building codes and applicable test standards can almost always be used as evidence that reasonable or due care was or was not exercised in the design and construction of a building.
So, returning to the original question: Why am I sure architects and specifiers will use ASTM F3561 if the building codes adopt it? Suppose the building codes adopt this new test standard. In that case, it will not only assist in selecting safer building materials but also arm those architects and specifiers using it with a powerful new tool to prove that they exercised due care when designing schools in this new, unprecedented age of combatting active shooters.