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


[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Dennis stated that the EOR 

>.... is responsible for insuring that the
structural design is followed to the letter of the design drawings. In
past failures have proven in court that if the engineer was not aware of
changes that were made, he (or she) is still responsible.<

I believe this interpretation is in error.  This interpretation states that
the engineer is responsible for the completed structure.  This is a far
higher standard than is normally required of a professional engineer.  

The EOR is responsible for performing his duties in accordance with the
normal standard of care of other engineers in the area where the project is
located.  The reality is that, in many parts of the country the EOR visits
the site periodically if at all, and  is not in any position to guarantee
that the construction documents were in all cases followed.   While some 
jurisdictions may require the EOR to observe construction and to sign a
statement that to the best of his knowledge the project was constructed in
accordance with the design documents 1) not all jurisdictions do so (even
in California), and 2) the statement clearly does not make him responsible
for deviations that he was not aware of.  Read Chapter 17 of the UBC.

In addition I believe that you will find that no insurance carrier will
insure a professional engineer for such liability.  How can you hold
somebody responsible for the acts of others?  

I believe such misinformed statements create faulty expectations which
un-necessarily increases our liability exposure.  

Mark Gilligan