Construction Defects and Walking Surfaces

By the failure pattern and its timing. Wear develops along traffic paths and progresses gradually. An installation defect appears early, in a pattern that follows the work rather than the traffic: hollow tile across one bay, lippage along a single setter's run, a transition proud from day one.

They carry considerable weight because they state, in the manufacturer's own words, what was required for the product to perform. Substrate preparation, adhesive selection, coverage, cure times and maintenance are all specified, and a documented departure gives a clear, non-novel basis.

Yes. The condition carries most of the evidence: coverage can be assessed where a unit is lifted, substrate condition examined and detailing observed. With the specification, submittals, purchase records and any punch-list documentation, that is generally enough to describe what was done.

No. The analysis addresses whether the work executed matched the manufacturer's instructions, the code and the contract documents. Whether the assembly specified was the right one for the application is a design question and is referred to the appropriate licensed discipline.

The product specification and submittals, delivery and purchase records, the installer's contract scope, daily reports from the installation period, punch lists and warranty correspondence. Construction-period photography is frequently the single most useful item in the file.

A slab outside the flatness tolerance leaves voids under the covering. Traffic works the covering against those voids until tile cracks, resilient flooring delaminates or a seam lifts, producing an edge that was not there at handover. The defect is in the preparation, not the wear.