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

RE: UBC: How Do You Interpret 1997 UBC P

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
NOTE: By "shyster" I was referring to the attorney for the OWNER. If you
read the deposition (the deponent was not the EOR, but someone hired by the
EOR to do a peer-review after the problem had surfaced), you'd understand
what I mean. The guy is SO arrogant and petty. He brow-beats the poor guy
every time he says "because that is my professional judgement based upon 38
years of practice." The "shyster" continually makes snide remarks about that
"38 years" comment. Such as "so you don't have any rational reason for
deciding this other than this alleged '38 years'?" He says "Objection, not
responsive to my question" whenever the engineer tries to explain his
answers: "If I want any more than what I've asked you, I'll tell you, is
that clear?"

* * *

I don't think some of you understand what I'm getting at here. As I said, I
can't authoritatively (at this point) state an opinion. I am doing a bit of
"brain storming" (what if *this*? Or how about *that*?) to try to zero in on
my opinion.

Believe me, I have UTMOST sympathy for this EOR. Do you think I don't worry
about "what if it happened to me?" I didn't used to be so concerned, until I
hung out my own shingle. Suddenly the burden is SQUARELY on my shoulders. I
HAVE to think about it.

Consider this, as well: Another big payout by this guy's E&O insurance means
one more brick in the wall. All of us who have to pay premiums for E&O are
affected by the litigious nature of our work, unfortunately. We recently
discussed in one of my committee meetings, the fact that insurance premiums
are going up this year for ALL who carry E&O, solely because there has been
a marked increase in the past few years in payouts for claims.

So please don't surreptitiously construe that I'm trying to "get the goods"
on this guy. I'm not. I'm trying to arrive at something approaching "the
truth."



William L. Polhemus, Jr. P.E.
Polhemus Engineering Company
Katy, TX, USA
Phone (281) 492-2251
FAX (281) 492-8203
email bill(--nospam--at)polhemus.cc

-----Original Message-----
From: Roger Turk [mailto:73527.1356(--nospam--at)compuserve.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 8:20 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: Re: UBC: How Do You Interpret 1997 UBC P

Joe Venuti wrote:

. > Hind site is always easier when you have not liability  abd you were not
. > being pounded on by the client to get the job done last week.
. > Your opinion as to what should have been used as a live load
. > Today....may not be what even you used back then...
. > your both correct by code.
. > before you somewhat accuse.......it may come around to you some
day.......
. > the crap they don't teach you in school...

And I would like to see Bill Polhemus' answer to the deposition question,
"Upon what have you relied on to base your opinion?"  (The attorney, if he
is worth his salt, would have this listservice thread in his hands before he
asks the question.)  And I would also like to see the answer to the
question,
"Do you consider these [sources] authorities on the subject?"  (From my
understanding, "authority" has a specific legal definition.)

I also don't think that Bill Polhemus' attorney-client would particularly
relish Bill referring to him a "shyster."

A. Roger Turk, P.E.(Structural)
Tucson, Arizona



******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
*
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
*   site at: http://www.seaint.org
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********