William said:
I didn't miss the point (I think). He was doing the work of an electrician.
And whether or not he was a licensed electrician, he is still morally
responsible for the quality of his work. (Think Hamurabi.)
Only if it can be shown that he did something wrong. I don't know what
US tolerances on voltage are but in the UK 245v on a nominally 240 line
(these days 230v with asymetric tolerancing) wouldn't raise eyebrows.
No, there wouldn't be. But if he botched the job, he has to be held
responsible. Doesn't he?
Iff he botched the job. The kit worked for a while after he left. And he
did not claim to be a qualified electrician.
Had he connected the machine chassis to live and electrocuted someone
then it would be a different matter. But even then the employer who got
in a cut price handyman to do a qualified industrial electricians job
would still be guilty of more serious fundamental health and safety
offences for not having the installation inspected by a competent person
before switching it on. What are the US regs like on employer liability?
Of course, one might argue that if the person who hired him /knew/ he wasn't
an electrician, and didn't have the work inspected, then he (the hirer) is
responsible for whatever went wrong.
Exactly. And that is how the insurers would argue it to avoid paying out
a dime if the whole building burnt down as a result of unqualified
electrical work that had not been properly inspected before switch on. I
don't see that the handyman has anything to answer for although he may
still have problems with frivolous litigation from the OP's mate.
Regards,
Martin Brown