THE LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF QUALITY CONTROL

THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ENGINEER AND HIS CLIENT, WHETHER ARCHITECT OR OWNER, IS NOT THE MEASURE OF LIABILITY TO THIRD PERSONS. HIS PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES EXTEND TO ALL WHO MIGHT REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO BE INJURED BY HIS FAILURE TO CARRY THEM OUT, WHETHER HE IS A CONTRACTOR'S EMPLOYEE, THE OWNER, OR SIMPLY A PASSERBY. HERE IS WHERE THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN DESIGN SERVICES ONLY AND DESIGN AND INSPECTION SERVICES WITH RESPECT TO ACTUAL ERECTION ARE APPARENT. THE DUTY WITH RESPECT TO EITHER DESIGN OR SUPERVISION IS THE SAME. SUPERVISION OF SITE WORK IS A STILL BROADER ASSUMPTION OF RESPONSIBILITY AND CARRIES WITH IT A BURDEN OF INCREASED LIABILITY. AN ENGINEER IS UNDER A DUTY TO FURNISH PLANS, APPROVALS AND DECISIONS WITHOUT DELAY. DELAYS CAN SUBJECT HIM TO LIABILITY TO THE CONTRACTOR FOR OVERHEAD OR EXCESS COST OF OVERCOMING UNREASONABLE DELAYS. EVEN WITH TIME AND AN ADEQUATE BUDGET, RAPID CHANGES IN TECHNOLOGY, NEW PRODUCTS AND NEW EQUIPMENT CONSTANTLY IMPOSE NEW HAZARDS. WHERE A COMPLETED STRUCTURE IS DEFECTIVE, DAMAGE IS ASSESSED IN TWO WAYS: (1) IF THE DEFECT CAN BE REMEDIED AT REASONABLE COST, THE OWNER IS ENTITLED TO THE COST OF REPAIRS, AND (2) IF THE DEFICIENCIES CANNOT BE REMEDIED, THE OWNER IS ENTITLED TO RECOVER THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE VALUE OF THE BUILDING AS CONSTRUCTED AND THE VALUE IT WOULD HAVE HAD IF IT HAD BEEN BUILT UNDER CORRECT PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND WITH PROPER SUPERVISION. RECENT CHANGES IN THE LAW CONCERNING AN INJURED WORKMAN WHO COLLECTS WORKMAN'S COMPENSATION AND IS FORECLOSED FROM SUING HIS EMPLOYER HAVE EXPOSED ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS TO A LIABILITY VIRTUALLY UNKNOWN A FEW YEARS AGO. A WORKMAN INJURED BECAUSE OF THE COLLAPSE OF A NEGLIGENTLY DESIGNED STRUCTURE SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO RECOVER HIS ACTUAL DAMAGES FROM THE PERSON AT FAULT. CURRENTLY, THE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL IS BEING CHARGED WITH LIABILITY BEYOND HIS CONTROL. THERE IS QUESTION IN SOME JURISDICTIONS WHETHER OR NOT A HOLD HARMLESS PROVISION IN A CONTRACT IS VALID AT ALL, SINCE IT CAN BE REGARDED AS A VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY TO CONTRACT AWAY ONE'S LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR HIS OWN FAULT. THE HOLD HARMLESS SOLUTION TO LEGAL EXPOSURE SEEMS TO BE AN APPLICATION OF TOO BROAD A BRUSH TO A VERY COMPLEX SUBJECT. IT IS OF DOUBTFUL LEGALITY IN MANY JURISDICTIONS AND IMPRACTICAL FROM A COST STANDPOINT IN ALMOST ALL AREAS. ASSERTED LIABILITY FOR A DEFICIENTLY DESIGNED STRUCTURE PRESENTLY HAS NO LIMITATION. ANY LEGAL LIMITATION OF LIABILITY AGAINST THE INVEVITABLE RISKS OF DESIGN AND SUPERVISION SIMPLY MEANS SOME OTHER PART OF THE INDUSTRY WILL ASSUME THOSE RISKS.

• Availability:
  • Find a library where document is available. Order URL: http://worldcat.org/oclc/10480594
• Supplemental Notes:
  • Vol 37, No 11, PP 72-73
• Authors:
  • Davidson, D M
• Publication Date: 1967-11

Media Info

• Serial:
  • Civil Engineering
  • Publisher: American Society of Civil Engineers
  • ISSN: 0885-7024
  • Serial URL: http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/newce/html

Subject/Index Terms

• TRT Terms: Construction management; Contracts; Deficiencies; Design; Engineers; Legal factors; Legal responsibility; Liabilities; Quality control
• Old TRIS Terms: Construction control
• Subject Areas: Administration and Management; Construction; Design; Finance; Highways; Law;

Filing Info

• Accession Number: 00214760
• Record Type: Publication
• Files: TRIS
• Created Date: Jan 30 1994 12:00AM