Should Slip Resistance For Floor Tiles Be Considered A Factor As Important As Weight Limits For Wall

[Dan]

When a customer wants to put stone on a wall, the first thing we all shout about is what's the substrate?! - because we want to know if the weight limit including adhesive is going to go over the allowed british standards for wall tiling (32kg per square meter for plasterboard, unskimmed, and 20kg per square meter for skimmed, for those wondering).

Yet when it comes to floor tiles, we never ever see the question being asked, what's the R-Value for that floor tile? Or perhaps more to the point because it's more of an accurate test, what's the PTV (Pendulum Test Value) for that floor tile?

Please discuss the actual test and whatnot in this thread here: Floor Slip Rating For Floor Tiles | Pendulum Test Value Ptv 36 Ptv38

Leave this thread you're reading now to the general question.

SHOULD WE BE ASKING THIS EVERY TIME WE SEE A CUSTOMER WANTING TO PUT POLISHED PORCELAIN IN A BATHROOM ON A FLOOR?! ​

Because the slip resistance sort of states that you're going to be slipping on those tiles when they're wet about as much as you slip on ice! (Kind of, sort of). (again, see the other thread for the PTV's of polished porcelain tiles where ray is correcting me quite a bit as I waffle and try to learn about the values - leave this thread for whether we should be asking this as much as we do weight limits for wall tiles).

 

[Dan]

@Lithofin BOB sort of confirmed what I thought might be the case in this thread: What Tile Sealers For Floors Increase The Anti Slip Rating? (ptv Rating)

So sealers can't really be used for polished porcelain.

If tiles fall off a wall and the tiler didn't consider weights and should have known better. He's partly to blame, right?

So why aren't we worried as tilers about fixing slippy floor tiles in bathrooms on floors just the same?

 

[kevsalt]

i always try to make customers aware of how slippy big polished porc can be then its their choice really ..they look ace when laid but can be deadly when wet

 

[White Room]

I have tried in the past to advise on slippery surfaces, like trying to bang your head against the wall.

 

[Dan]

But we don't tile a wall at all that's skimmed, painted, and customer wants slate on it.

So why do we tile a wetroom shower area with heavily glazed ceramics or polished porcelain or something similar?

I wonder if some random situation where it did go to court took place, whether the tiler would come into court with some blame being fired against him.

Which WOULD be the case if he's the guy who's meant to have the knowledge, tiling that painted skimmed wall above with slate.

Is there a difference?

 

[7ACK14]

I think as long as the customer has specified polished, and the tiler has warned of the slip risks before fitting, there isn't any basis for a lawsuit.

(I have a Foundation degree in UK law, specializing in Tort, so hopefully I'm not too rusty with this)

The principal of Duty of Care.follows 3 rules;
Is any Harm Foreseeable? (It's a no-brainer, slippery tiles could lead to slipping!)
Does the Victim have proximity to the Defendant? (If you're tiling somebody's bathroom, I'd say that's good enough proximity)

And most importantly
Is it fair to impose the Duty of Care?
And I'd say the answer is no. If the tiler has explained the risks, and the customer accepts them, they shouldn't be able to later claim that their harm is the fault of the fitter; it's their fault for choosing said tiles.

Also, there is the 'Reasonable Person Test' i.e. what would the 'Reasonable Tiler' do. From what I've heard from my tilers, and what I've read here, is you're all switched on enough to advise against it, but will generally fit it if the customer demands such. So a magistrate would likely throw the case out on that basis.

So yes, there probably should be more strict rules; but good luck making the punters care! It never hurts to warn people, but it will probably only hurt them if you go ahead with it

(Sorry about the essay, I can't condense simple ideas into two sentences...)

 

[Dan]

Love a good essay here. We have lengthier posts about grout. So don't worry.

So would the same apply if a tiler tiles a wall knowing there's a chance they're going to fall off?

As long as the customer has been told they're going to fall off, it's not the tiler to blame..?

 

[White Room]

I think as long as the customer has specified polished, and the tiler has warned of the slip risks before fitting, there isn't any basis for a lawsuit.

(I have a Foundation degree in UK law, specializing in Tort, so hopefully I'm not too rusty with this)

The principal of Duty of Care.follows 3 rules;
Is any Harm Foreseeable? (It's a no-brainer, slippery tiles could lead to slipping!)
Does the Victim have proximity to the Defendant? (If you're tiling somebody's bathroom, I'd say that's good enough proximity)

And most importantly
Is it fair to impose the Duty of Care?
And I'd say the answer is no. If the tiler has explained the risks, and the customer accepts them, they shouldn't be able to later claim that their harm is the fault of the fitter; it's their fault for choosing said tiles.

Also, there is the 'Reasonable Person Test' i.e. what would the 'Reasonable Tiler' do. From what I've heard from my tilers, and what I've read here, is you're all switched on enough to advise against it, but will generally fit it if the customer demands such. So a magistrate would likely throw the case out on that basis.

So yes, there probably should be more strict rules; but good luck making the punters care! It never hurts to warn people, but it will probably only hurt them if you go ahead with it

(Sorry about the essay, I can't condense simple ideas into two sentences...)

Well said your honour

 

[7ACK14]

As long as the customer has been told they're going to fall off, it's not the tiler to blame..?

It's a tricky one, but I think in that case 'The Reasonable Tiler' might refuse to do it (I'm not actually sure though without doing a 100 party survey!) so perhaps it's more fair to impose the duty.

Tiles falling off the wall is due to fixing that isn't safe (no matter who insists on it), so it's the quality of the job that causes the danger. With slippery tiles, it's the product that causes the risk, no matter how they are laid, ultimately it's the slippery factor that is dangerous.

I'm really not sure though; probably isn't a right answer. There are too many grey areas in Tort, which is one of the reasons I'm in this industry, rather than in the court room wearing a lovely set of robes!

 

[Dan]

Surely then quality of the tiling (using incorrect materials) is to blame for the slippy porcelain floor that mrs Jones fell on and broke her neck? Just playing devils advocate.

Mrs Jones is actually alright. She had a tiler who recommended using tiles with a good pendulum test rating when wet.

 

[Dan]

It's a tricky one, but I think in that case 'The Reasonable Tiler' might refuse to do it (I'm not actually sure though without doing a 100 party survey!) so perhaps it's more fair to impose the duty.

Tiles falling off the wall is due to fixing that isn't safe (no matter who insists on it), so it's the quality of the job that causes the danger. With slippery tiles, it's the product that causes the risk, no matter how they are laid, ultimately it's the slippery factor that is dangerous.

I'm really not sure though; probably isn't a right answer. There are too many grey areas in Tort, which is one of the reasons I'm in this industry, rather than in the court room wearing a lovely set of robes!

PTV of 36 minimum is the UK Law.... apparently. Not seen it enforced mind. So IF that WAS the case, does that change anything?