Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

RE: LGS - Is the Supplier Liable???

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
As you stated - points well taken. Thanks for your comments, I'll pass them
along to my client.

Dennis Wish PE
La Quinta, California
ICQ# 6110557

"Silence is the virtue of fools."
Francis Bacon

|-----Original Message-----
|From: Christopher Wright [mailto:chrisw(--nospam--at)]
|Sent: Thursday, March 26, 1998 7:59 AM
|To: SEAOC Newsletter
|Subject: RE: LGS - Is the Supplier Liable???
|>You do have a point, however in this case there was never an engineer on
|>project. The county allowed these homes to be designed by
|Point taken. Then whoever specified these structurals is practicing
|professional engineering without being duly licensed. I think this makes
|the County negligent, not the supplier. (Without meaning to sound like a
|guardhouse lawyer ;-> )
|>The closest thing to a design professional was the supplier of the
|>who SHOULD know that a non-standard section which is outside the range of
|>H/t ratios as indicated in their company catalog is being ordered. They
|>never questioned the order - they simply filled it.
|I've seen similar cases where suppliers were made defendants, but I think
|it was because the equipment was considered non-merchantable because of
|some design defect. If the sections were unconditionally unusable for any
|purpose, the supplier is at fault. If the H/t could be used for some
|service (short spans or low loads--something like that where buckling
|wasn't an issue) it's hard to imagine that the sections could be
|considered defective.
|>I don't believe that it is an issue of questioning the judgment of the
|Straight on. There was no engineer. I think that puts most of the burden
|on the County who assumed that role.
|>Those that manufacture a material must have some responsility to ensure it
|>safe usage - this is only ethical. It may not be legal or required, but
|>bet in court a lawyer can make a great argument for it.
|Too true--I've seen fat settlements over softer notions of defective and
|dangerous. I think the argument (which could go on forever...) would be
|based on what constitutes reasonable.
|Christopher Wright P.E.    |"They couldn't hit an elephant from
|chrisw(--nospam--at)        | this distance"   (last words of Gen.
|___________________________| John Sedgwick, Spotsylvania 1864)