Your garage door opener has two safety systems. The first and most apparent is The Protector System® which is located 4 to 6 inches above the garage floor on both sides of the door. To test the sensors, first open the door, then place a carton or an item that completely blocks the opening of the door. When commanded to close, the door will not move more than an inch and the opener's light bulb will flash for 5 seconds, equaling 10 flashes. Removal of the carton or item will allow normal operation. If the safety sensors become misaligned or obstructed, the garage door can be closed by pressing and holding the wall door control button until down travel is completed.

Secondly, the opener has a built-in automatic reverse system that should reverse upon striking an obstruction.

After adjusting the opener, always test the safety reverse system. We recommend repeating this test monthly.

Place a one inch board (or 2 x 4 laid flat) on the floor, centered under the garage door. Operate the door in the down direction. The door must reverse upon striking the board. If it does not, refer to your owner's manual, speak to one of our technical service representatives by calling our S.O.S. HotLine® at 1-800-528-5880, or call your local Lift-Master Authorized Dealer. Failure to pass the above test could result in serious injury or death.

Please remember to repeat this test once a month.

The above information also answers the question that we have had on the A.I.I. Inspector Hotline recently of how to test the downward force on garage door openers. Some have used the hand method. Some have tried the foot method at least once. The commonly referred method is the roll of paper towels. I thought that the duct taped roll of paper towels was going to be recommended at the LiftMaster website. Instead, they say to use the "2x4 on the floor in the center of the door" testing method.

The question arose because one of our members used the hand method and broke the top portion of the door. Another mentioned derailing the door with the roll of paper towels. Neither of these tests are recommended here. So here is my question to all of you..........

If we use a test method that is not recommended by the manufacturer and we break something in the process, then how do we have any right to not pay for the damages incurred???

If we are going to safely stay underneath our Umbrella of Protection, then shouldn't we keep our testing methods in accordance with those recommended by the manufacturers??? If the device breaks when we are following the recommended testing method, then we have every right to use the "Not Responsible" disposition expressed so well by Steve Dansby.........

Cathy: Should you pay? ABSOLUTELY NOT! Why?

• 1) Because you were "testing" the auto reverse mechanism, which simulates a body of a child or ...?
• 2) The "eye" safety feature was "illegally" installed.
• 3) The buyer was your witness to the fact that you did not do anything to cause the damage. You may have, unfortunately, aggravated a "POOR" installation, but that's it, no more.

They (the Sellers, Buyers and Agents) should be grateful that this happened during your simple, non-technical, non-destructive (typical) test--especially the Sellers. I would point the finger toward the person who illegally installed the door and its mechanisms. HE/SHE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS ENTIRE FAILURE. Lucky for that person it was not a child who discovered this defect.

Just because YOU were there and touched something, no matter what ITEM, it doesn't make you responsible for "its" action. If it fails, as this certainly did, then it was due to an illegal, improper installation. If you walk on the roof to inspect its condition and it has some challenges, such as a soft spot, and you happen to identify it with your body weight breaking through, do you owe them a roof repair? NO!

We are "The Testers" of systems. If they fail before, during, or after our inspection we are no more responsible for their repair than the buyer is. It is the Seller's home and their responsibility--either directly or indirectly--to check the person who works on their home (like a garage door installer). Now if you backed into the garage door and caused an "accident" then yes, you would be obligated to pay. But certainly not for doing your job. You are not going to impress anyone by taking this responsibility on. You may make it easier on the Agent(s) and Seller, but the reward for taking on someone else's liability is foolish and could make you look foolish, unprofessional and certainly a scape goat.

TIP: (I "never" test a door with my hands and neither should you or anyone else for that matter.) Take a new roll of paper towels, (preferably a stout heavy type like the ones you would use in the garage for cleanup or washing car windshields), in 3 sections place duct tape around the towels to secure it. Now, when you test the garage door's reverse mechanism you first place the roll on the floor (locate it under one of the panel's struts for strength to the door and maximum pressure on the roll) and then press the button. This method simulates the size of a child's body (neck) and it is a consistent test method each and every time. If the reverse is in good working order it will back up. If not, it will remain on the towels until you push the button to release the door. Works well and "you haven't touched the door" if something goes awry.

I had a garage door come off of the tracks last week and it broke the top panel and came off track (using the button on the overhead operator). It required a technician to repair (whom the Agent contacted) and that is what I put in my report "Recommend further evaluation by a licensed overhead garage door technician due to..." and I stated in my report what had taken place. The Buyer was there, but not the Seller. Did I pay to have it fixed? Why should I? I didn't create the situation. The sellers did through their lack of maintenance. I did leave a warning note regarding the door; that's it. Personal responsibility over and done--correctly I might add. Good luck! Steve E. Dansby - Portola, CA

Steve Dansby then further clarified his position with......

Folks, I am not writing this to defend my position. I believe that we must venture into this question of liability further in order to understand it more clearly.

• First, never volunteer your time and money until you and everyone else involved evaluates what took place. Allow yourself and everyone some time.
• Always be positive and concerned. (I can tell you were, Cathy, very concerned and felt badly for what happened which made you feel responsible; whether this was right or wrong.)
• State when you will get back to them with what took place and your decision.
• Be fair, decisive, honest and above all, professional.
• If it is your fault, say so and take care of it (good PR).
• However, if it is not your fault, then state why, etc., and be firm.

I must add this, too! If we are going to assume the responsibility for items that fail during or after we perform a home inspection, we leave ourselves open for the "deep pocket" potential. (Bad PR) We place ourselves on a slippery slope when we have the attitude that taking this responsibility is good PR.

If it was not our responsibility, we may open ourselves up to the bottom feeder Agents--not good, you know, the word gets around. We are an underpaid industry as it is. Giving away our fee, time and energy each time this happens can put us out of business quickly. If we spend 3-5 hours on an inspection and the fee is, let's say, $300 +/-, and something not your fault fails, good-bye money, time, etc.,followed by depression or at least a bad day.

If we are truly responsible for an action, then accept it and move on. However, if we accept someone else's responsibility then we are being foolish. Foolish with our time, money and education. With that reasoning, we should be willing to pay for any and all of the challenges that we "recommend for further evaluation" in our reports. After all we exposed the conditions. (Silly, huh!?)

As to the paper roll vs. the arm test: I defy anyone to guarantee that they can take each and every door they test and use the same value of resistance each time. Every door is different in its makeup and manufacture. Some are extremely light (cheap) and others can be extremely heavy (typically wood). You cannot possibly identify what is going to take place using this method, unless you check prior to operating the door all of the hardware, connectors, springs, runners, wheels, weather-stripping (if any), supports and, of course, the overhead operator.

Heck, we cannot even tell if the overhead operator is going to fail at the moment we hit the button. (I had a unit that stripped the gears at the time that I was inspecting it. My fault? Why? Yes, the door operated fine until that moment; lucky me. I said, "Have a service tech out to identify the condition of the operator and let me know what he says." You guessed it-- old age. Plus the insulated door was too heavy for the Stanley 1/2 hp, it was time for replacement. Just because I was there doing my job did not make me responsible. Heck, it made me the hero to the Buyer and the Seller understood--eventually. Best of all, the Broker/Agent was pleased in the manner that it was handled. I digress.

Anyway, I encourage you to consider or reconsider the paper towel method. This is a consistent testing method. It does not vary in resistance one day to the next as we can, depending on our testosterone. Imagine Woody Allen vs. Arnold Schwartznegar (?) in testing resistance. Would you say that they would test them the same or not? Food for thought, I hope. Steve E. Dansby - Portola, CA

That was fun to step back a couple of years and see what we had previously learned and discussed. No let's come back to the present.