The question of what the degree of an engineer's obligations are, commonly come up when an engineered component breaks. One well known part to this query is whether or not an engineer's responsibilities stretch beyond a contractual liability with its employer.
In Strijdom Park Extension 6 (Pty) Ltd v Abcon (Pty) Ltd this problem was raised and resolved via the High Court of Appeal.
Background
In this particular matter the engineer was employed by Strijdom Park Extension 6 (Pty) Ltd ("the employer") to build a steel reinforced layer of concrete separating the bottom floor from the attic of a warehouse which was put up by Abcon (Pty) Ltd ("the contractor"). The layer of concrete failed 2 years after occupation of the warehouse was taken.
The employer implemented a claim for harm to the service provider and the engineer, claiming that they breached their individual agreements with the employer. The claim against the engineer was satisfied, however the claim against the company was heard on appeal.
The parties were in agreement that the collapse must-have taken place throughout the casting of the slab when the concrete was placed over and inside the network of the reinforcing steel.
The dilemma that had to be settled upon appeal was, for starters, whether or not the failure of the slab was at a minimum to some extent attributable to a faulty engineering design and, subsequently, whether the engineer had a responsibility to the contractor.
The Court considered the below undisputed proof: * the malfunction was due to the failure of the higher of two criss-cross mats of steel bars that were covered inside the concrete to reinforce it; * the cave in had been a end result thereof many of stools (which kept the two mats apart) were found to have been bent out of shape; * the contact between the upper mat and the stools was restricted to one bar of the mat sitting on the centre of the horizontal piece of each of such stools; * the stools were not secured; and * the stool collapse took place from the casting of the slab.
The Contractor's Disagreement
The Contractor, firstly, took the position that it hadn't been responsible for the damages since it had constructed the concrete slab as outlined by the engineer's design, that had been supposedly flawed.
Secondly, the contractor trusted the fact the engineer had authorised the way the reinforcement was installed.
Ultimately, the contractor remarked that the engineer's design failed to reveal that there would have to be two bars of top mat per stool, nor that the stools must be mounted.
The contractor maintained that it failed to notice the collapse of the top mat, nor did it appreciate that the stools had not been tied. It is obvious from the contractor's evidence that he left every relevant choice associated with the putting together of the strengthening to the engineer as well as the steel contractor.
The Employer's Argument
The business contended that: * It was the obligation of the contractor to build the support mats as well as build and maintain same in the proper place.
* Accurate building procedure required that, whenever you can, two bars of the top mat ought to be placed on each stool and that the feet of the stools be joined. There isn't any reason for an engineer to indicate these techniques on his drawings because these specifications are part and parcel of good building procedure and exclusively the contractor's duty.
* The contractor must have detected the failure during the pouring procedure and really should have stopped the task in order to seek advice from the engineer.
* If the contractor had observed its obligations as set out above, the collapse would not have transpired.
The Court's Solution
The Court agreed with the employer's position.
There was no proof supporting the claim that the engineer's design was defective. Even though the engineer had approved the steel structure on-site, he did not have a responsibility to oversee the task of the contractor. It was the contractor's choice how it performed the construction work and it cannot transfer the blame to the engineer in the situation where it did not perform its work in a proper and workmanlike fashion. It was also the contractor's obligation to make certain the building of a design is free of complications.
In the Court's view, it was acceptable of the engineer to anticipate that the contractor would make certain correct assembly of the reinforcement mat by identifying any displacement and taking appropriate action whenever it occurred.
The Court additionally replied that the engineer had only a contractual duty to its customer and not towards the contractor. The engineer didn't actually have a duty to intervene if the contractor appear to be going wrong (unless it was obvious to the engineer that the contractor was not sure of his business and was going to get it wrong). Such an obligation to intervene would only happen if the contractor seem to be set on an unbelievable act of recklessness.
The Court therefore decided that the slab had failed because the contractor did not carry out the construction in a proper and workmanlike fashion.
Bottom line
* An engineer's obligations aren't extended beyond what's laid out in his agreement with his employer.
* An engineer will therefore not have the duty to oversee the job of a contractor, unless he is contractually required to do so and he can't be held accountable for another party's contractual breach.
In Strijdom Park Extension 6 (Pty) Ltd v Abcon (Pty) Ltd this problem was raised and resolved via the High Court of Appeal.
Background
In this particular matter the engineer was employed by Strijdom Park Extension 6 (Pty) Ltd ("the employer") to build a steel reinforced layer of concrete separating the bottom floor from the attic of a warehouse which was put up by Abcon (Pty) Ltd ("the contractor"). The layer of concrete failed 2 years after occupation of the warehouse was taken.
The employer implemented a claim for harm to the service provider and the engineer, claiming that they breached their individual agreements with the employer. The claim against the engineer was satisfied, however the claim against the company was heard on appeal.
The parties were in agreement that the collapse must-have taken place throughout the casting of the slab when the concrete was placed over and inside the network of the reinforcing steel.
The dilemma that had to be settled upon appeal was, for starters, whether or not the failure of the slab was at a minimum to some extent attributable to a faulty engineering design and, subsequently, whether the engineer had a responsibility to the contractor.
The Court considered the below undisputed proof: * the malfunction was due to the failure of the higher of two criss-cross mats of steel bars that were covered inside the concrete to reinforce it; * the cave in had been a end result thereof many of stools (which kept the two mats apart) were found to have been bent out of shape; * the contact between the upper mat and the stools was restricted to one bar of the mat sitting on the centre of the horizontal piece of each of such stools; * the stools were not secured; and * the stool collapse took place from the casting of the slab.
The Contractor's Disagreement
The Contractor, firstly, took the position that it hadn't been responsible for the damages since it had constructed the concrete slab as outlined by the engineer's design, that had been supposedly flawed.
Secondly, the contractor trusted the fact the engineer had authorised the way the reinforcement was installed.
Ultimately, the contractor remarked that the engineer's design failed to reveal that there would have to be two bars of top mat per stool, nor that the stools must be mounted.
The contractor maintained that it failed to notice the collapse of the top mat, nor did it appreciate that the stools had not been tied. It is obvious from the contractor's evidence that he left every relevant choice associated with the putting together of the strengthening to the engineer as well as the steel contractor.
The Employer's Argument
The business contended that: * It was the obligation of the contractor to build the support mats as well as build and maintain same in the proper place.
* Accurate building procedure required that, whenever you can, two bars of the top mat ought to be placed on each stool and that the feet of the stools be joined. There isn't any reason for an engineer to indicate these techniques on his drawings because these specifications are part and parcel of good building procedure and exclusively the contractor's duty.
* The contractor must have detected the failure during the pouring procedure and really should have stopped the task in order to seek advice from the engineer.
* If the contractor had observed its obligations as set out above, the collapse would not have transpired.
The Court's Solution
The Court agreed with the employer's position.
There was no proof supporting the claim that the engineer's design was defective. Even though the engineer had approved the steel structure on-site, he did not have a responsibility to oversee the task of the contractor. It was the contractor's choice how it performed the construction work and it cannot transfer the blame to the engineer in the situation where it did not perform its work in a proper and workmanlike fashion. It was also the contractor's obligation to make certain the building of a design is free of complications.
In the Court's view, it was acceptable of the engineer to anticipate that the contractor would make certain correct assembly of the reinforcement mat by identifying any displacement and taking appropriate action whenever it occurred.
The Court additionally replied that the engineer had only a contractual duty to its customer and not towards the contractor. The engineer didn't actually have a duty to intervene if the contractor appear to be going wrong (unless it was obvious to the engineer that the contractor was not sure of his business and was going to get it wrong). Such an obligation to intervene would only happen if the contractor seem to be set on an unbelievable act of recklessness.
The Court therefore decided that the slab had failed because the contractor did not carry out the construction in a proper and workmanlike fashion.
Bottom line
* An engineer's obligations aren't extended beyond what's laid out in his agreement with his employer.
* An engineer will therefore not have the duty to oversee the job of a contractor, unless he is contractually required to do so and he can't be held accountable for another party's contractual breach.
About the Author:
Get accurate infomation on engineering and construction law. Let professional engineering attorneys advise you on your duties and obligations.
0 comments:
Post a Comment