wrote in message
ups.com...

I called the contractor and he claimed since the copper pipe wasn't
centered in the stud, and thus not done to code, he wasn't responsible.
I feel that since it wasn't leaking before he started working on the
house, and it was his nail that caused the leak, he is ultimately
responsible regardless of whether the plumbing was to code or not. I
am hoping to settle this dispute and I haven't been able to find any
authoritative legal precedent. Does anyone have any ideas on this?

Both parties seem to have a defective understanding of
both building codes and common law.

1. In most jurisdictions, the only part of the building code
that is retroactive (i.e. obligates both home-owner and
contractor after a house has been OKed for occupation)
is the fire safety code. E.g. code nowadays often specify
bathroom doorways must be wide enough for wheelchairs.
But this does not obligate homeowners (or repair
carpenters) to rip out old doorways to make them comply
with the new code.

2. Unless specified beforehand in writing, your
assertion that the contractor is liable for damage he
caused is a common-law claim. Defending himself, the
contractor can say he assumed the pipe was where the
code said it ought to be, so he is not liable for nail damage
where no pipe was expected. You would then have
to prove to a court's satisfaction that you had some
basis to expect he could tell in what non-code place
the pipe was located. Since you have already put the
damage right, you would need unusual oratorical skill
to get a court to listen. But only a court judgment
could enforce your claim.

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)