Forensic Analysis of a Deck Railing Failure

Incident Overview

A guest was visiting a friend’s home and, after a few drinks, accessed a wood-framed deck to smoke a cigarette. While on the deck, the handrail around the elevated deck failed, causing the guest to fall and sustain injuries. The guest claimed that he had leaned against the handrail when it suddenly displaced outward. However, the homeowner asserted that the individual stumbled across the deck at speed and impacted the handrail, leading to its failure.

Approximately one year after the incident, the guest filed a lawsuit against the homeowner, alleging that the handrail's failure was the result of deterioration, which reduced its capacity to resist code-mandated loading. The guest further alleged that the homeowner was obligated to inspect the handrail for deterioration and make repairs to ensure its adequacy to support code-mandated loading.

Envista’s Investigation

Envista was engaged to inspect the deck, review affidavits and depositions, and analyze photographs taken shortly after the incident. Our primary objective was to determine the cause of the handrail failure and assess whether it was due to construction deficiencies, deterioration, or lack of maintenance. Additionally, we were asked to assist in determining if the homeowner was obligated to have the deck professionally inspected and repairs completed.

To reach our conclusions, we examined:

• The deck’s construction and compliance with historical and current building codes
• A report produced by an engineer that had been retained by the guest
• Property maintenance codes and several referenced standards that were cited by the engineer retained by the guest

The mechanics of the failure required a thorough understanding of general physics, dynamics, and structural response.

Outcome & Impact

Envista’s forensic analysis disproved the guest’s claim, as the failure mode did not align with testimony that the handrail failed as he was leaning against it. Furthermore, we demonstrated that:

• The deck was constructed before building code mandates for exterior decks were adopted, meaning that no non-compliance existed at the time of its construction.
• No code violations existed that would have triggered the modification or improvement (i.e. strengthening) of the deck.

Our findings played a crucial role in the case’s resolution, leading to a fair settlement and saving hundreds of thousands of dollars.