I just got more info from the attorney. It appears that the first surveyor did not produce a topo, but was checking the feasability to see if the site would be suitable for development. They were asked to stop work before they had finished. They had set a benchmark, but produced no survey, plans, or drawings.
The second surveyor found the benchmark which apparantly had an elevation marked on it that had not been verified.
Tommy,
I was on the Strip in Tuscaloosa last Saturday before the Alabama- Florida game and saw what I thought was the end of the Tennessee - LSU game. Everyone there was cheering for the Vols (or maybe against Les Miles)! It was hard to beleive.
Steve your last post changed my answer somewhat. I was going to mostly agree with Sicilian, but from what I have seen Privity of Contract may or may not work. From what I have seen the court rulings have been a mixed bag.
But now, second surveyor just bought the whole enchilada and deserves to have the book thrown at him.
Stephen
> The second surveyor found the benchmark which apparantly had an elevation marked on it that had not been verified.
That's very, very different. IMHO, the first surveyor is in the clear and the second is a dead duck.
In my world the use of one benchmark is much more than what I would call sloppy... but many do it and pay the price.
That is a way different kettle of fish. I'm sure somebody will still try to blame the first guy for marking an incorrect elevation on the TBM stake if that's what happened. Call me cynical but how well do you know this attorney? They'll tell you a lot of stuff and leave out a lot of stuff sometimes so you'll form an opinion in their favor. The good ones don't but they're not all good.
Were they singing Rocky Top?
"Several years ago....."
What is "several years"?
Is there a statute of limitations in this state?
Nobody was singing, just laughing at Les Miles. The wierd thing is that we left for the game after the clock expired and did not find out about the final outcome untill the score was announced in the stadium.
I don't know the attorney abd don't know when the benchmark was set.
1st guy is off the hook.
I Don't Think So
First surveyor sets a benchmark on the property.
Second surveyor uses said benhchmark and creates a topo based on it. That benchmark is the property owner's responsibility.
In order to put the onus on surveyor 2 one needs to show a contract requiring topo based on some specific datum. Absent that the datum is the benchmark as provided by the owner/developer.
Alternately surveyor 2 would have to state on the face of his survey that the elevations are based on some datum other than the provided benchmark to make him liable.
Gentleman it is standard procedure on local projects to use an assumed datum because most designs only require relative information. Whether that assumed datum is 100.00' or 547.76' it is assumed unless writings state otherwise.
Of course properly stating this case is still going to cost surveyor 2 a lot of money.
Paul in PA
I Don't Think So
> Gentleman it is standard procedure on local projects to use an assumed datum because most designs only require relative information. Whether that assumed datum is 100.00' or 547.76' it is assumed unless writings state otherwise.
A
That is why that we as surveyors are always butting heads with engineers, architects and planners etc to stop using assumed elevations here.
Surveyors here have made a strong headway that includes regulations to abolish assumed elevations.
In this day and age, assumed elevations should be a thing of the past. There are multiple ways to transfer elevations to a site and alternate ways to check the elevations.
I Don't Think So
“Second surveyor uses said benhchmark and creates a topo based on it. That benchmark is the property owner's responsibility.”
What???? The setting of a benchmark, and the relationship to a datum is in NO WAY a “property owner’s responsibility”. If that were the case, then why would any property owner anywhere need a licensed surveyor? They could just do it all themselves.
“…it is standard procedure on local projects to use an assumed datum because most designs only require relative information.”
"Standard procedure"?....NO WAY! Most (if not all) development comes under some form of regulatory review. One of the requirements is that the reviewing body can look at possible effects on surrounding areas, nearby developments, natural features, etc.
The prime example would be the involvement of a FLOOD ZONE....just the fact that there was a flood zone nearby would necessitate any development to take the boundaries of that flood zone into consideration. That could only be done by using the same accepted datum that was related to the flood zone.
Those were two really wrong-headed statements.......maybe you should stick to GPS and engineering.
I Don't Think So
Assumed elevations are standard procedure "sometimes" for us around here. Say we're doing a topo for a custom home on a one-acre lot in the foothills, it's not necessary to know the true elevation. When we send the topo to the architect, it clearly states the elevations are assumed and if the property is at 1000' +/- elevation, the assumed data will be something like 100' so it's clearly not an attempt to determine true elevations.
Of course, in the valley where there are flood zones all over the place and benchmarks are plentiful, it's not standard procedure.
No matter where you are, writing an assumed elevation on a stake is a bad idea.
I Think So
I think that every project is "project datum"
Whether your project is
> a custom home on a one-acre lot in the foothills
or
A height modernization project, you add a note about the datum and how it was derived and to what standard you gathered the data.
Dugger
Assumed Elevations
We use assumed elevations on (almost) every Septic Plan, but the assumed elevation used is far away from the local elevation to avoid any confusion.
Most subdivision plans require 5 foot contours. I'm guessing the majority are simply scaled of the USGS sheet and interpolated. If you are no where near the flood plain in wooded mountain country, most clients don't want to pay to know exactly how high they are above the ocean.
I Don't Think So
10-15 years ago it was common practice to assume 100' at some convenient place and go to town. Nowadays the agencies review plans relative to GIS data and insist that the plans be on the same datum. Assumed datums just aren't flying anymore. Not around here, anyway.
Welcome to the Boonies
Assumed elevations are used routinely so long as there is no essential need to tie to a confirmed benchmark. No zoning of any kind in the rural areas outside of known flood zones. If you want to build it, build it. Nobody's going to stop you.
If you intend to install facilities such that you need a waste treatment system, then you need to conform to state regulations that have been adopted by the county. Simple. Nothing to do with elevation so long as you aren't in a flood zone.
Very few of the benchmarks have been checked in many years. Much work is based on construction plans for previously constructed infrastructure such as bridges. If the plans say a certain point on the bridge was to be constructed at XXX.X feet elevation, then, by golly it was and everyone is using that as gospel. Same thing happens with sewer inverts all over small cities. If the sewer plans say the outflow line is at XXX.X feet elevation, then you work up from that to arrive at what it is onsite. The actual elevation change is the only thing that matters, not the source of the data.
You may call this dangerous and foolhardy if you wish. Nevertheless, it is going on every day all over the place.
