[TowerTalk] Action against US Tower?

Jim Lux jimlux at earthlink.net
Tue Jun 6 16:36:00 EDT 2006

At 08:33 AM 6/6/2006, Dick Green WC1M wrote:

>Another thing they do to avoid liability is say that the tower must be
>installed by a professional.

And who's to say what "professional" means. It's not like there's some 
governmental agency licensing tower installers as such(notwithstanding that 
there's a fair amount of government regulation of one sort or another 
covering tower work, as an occupation.) Is it someone who's carrying 
liability insurance?  Someone who has a contractor's license (which 
essentially means they've got insurance)?

>They used to have a loose network of installers
>who knew how to install and maintain the tower. Don't know if they still do.
>If you install it yourself and claim injury or damage occurred due to lack
>of documentation, they would probably point to disclaimers saying the tower
>is designed to be installed only by professionals.

but that disclaimer, as has been pointed out, is probably worthless in a 
lawsuit.  You can't really disclaim liability for defects, except in some 
fairly special cases. (all that "implied warranty of merchantability and 
fitness for use" stuff.)  More to the point, in the event of a disaster, 
there's a sort of dance of the attorneys as everyone jockeys for position 
until the case settles.  Rarely would it go to court, where the 
disclaimer's validity would actually get tested.  What having an (insured) 
professional installer in the mix means is there's at least one more party 
in the dispute.


More information about the TowerTalk mailing list