Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
RE: Food for thought[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: <seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org>
- Subject: RE: Food for thought
- From: "Dennis S. Wish" <wish(--nospam--at)cwia.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 11:08:44 -0700
Mike, IMHO, you can state whatever you like on a work agreement or contract, however, it is not binding until tested in court. Regardless of the protection against liability this doctor or any engineer feels is adequately stated in his terms and conditions - with the proper financial inducement, the liability can almost always (with the exception of frivolous law suites) be brought to trial and challenged. It's like the sign above the coat rack in a restaurant that states the proprietor is not responsible for theft or loss. This has been taken to court many times and in many cases, the restaurant owner has been found liable due to negligence. I don't think any disclaimer can protect the professional for negligence, however, I do believe that he can be protected when there was no guarantee in the beginning as to the effectiveness of the service. For one example, there is no earthquake proof structure - therefore any engineer can be sued for negligence when a structure is damaged. However, if the design and construction followed acceptable code compliance there should be no liability. Inasmuch as the justice system is filled with loopholes, my opinions are idealistic at best. The rule of thumb is never to rule out legal actions against you - just don't wave a pot of gold under their noses that will motivate them to test the waters at everyone's expense. Dennis Wish PE -----Original Message----- From: Mike Brown [mailto:mike.brown(--nospam--at)cshqa.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 1998 9:51 AM To: seaoc Subject: Food for thought I went to a Doctor the other day to see about getting a deviated septum repaired. We went over the procedure with explanations on what would happen and the benefits of making the repairs. I was now ready to make the appointment and go through with the operation. However, I was then sent to a person to discuss money and liability. During this process I was suppose to sign a waiver of liability which basically stated that if the procedure did not work, too bad. I wouldn't even get my money back. So, I was just thinking. Why couldn't we do that? Just have our clients sign a waiver stating that if a building had a structural failure, then too bad, it just wasn't ment to be. Of course I know that this is unethical, impractical, bad for business and the profession, etc. But how come the medical profession can get away with this type of treatment? I understand that there is a lot of lawsuits filed against physicians, but there are a lot of lawsuits filed against engineers as well. I just believe that if you say you are going to provide a service, you provide that service. Maybe I'm just missing something.
- Food for thought
- From: Mike Brown
- Food for thought
- Prev by Subject: Food for thought
- Next by Subject: Re: Food for thought
- Previous by thread: Food for thought
- Next by thread: Food for thought