The concern of what the scope of the engineer's duties are, typically come up every time an engineered assembly breaks. One notable part to this query is whether an engineer's accountabilities stretch over and above a contractual obligation with its employer.
In Strijdom Park Extension 6 (Pty) Ltd v Abcon (Pty) Ltd this issue was raised and cleared up by the Supreme Court of Appeal.
Background
On this matter the engineer was hired by Strijdom Park Extension 6 (Pty) Ltd ("the employer") to develop a steel reinforced concrete slab isolating the bottom floor from the basement of a factory that has been constructed by Abcon (Pty) Ltd ("the contractor"). The concrete slab failed two years after occupation of the facility had been taken.
The business implemented an insurance claim for damages against the service provider and the engineer, claiming that they had breached their particular contracts with the employer. The claim against the engineer was settled, however the claim against the company was heard on appeal.
The parties were convinced that the failure must've taken place during the casting of the slab when the bare concrete was poured over and in to the network of strengthening steel.
The dilemma which had to be settled upon appeal was, to begin with, whether the malfunction of the slab was at least partly as a result of a faulty engineering design and, secondly, if the engineer had a accountability towards the contractor.
The Court considered the below undeniable evidence: * the catastrophe was due to the collapse of the higher of two criss-cross mats of steel bars that were covered inside the concrete floor to reinforce it; * the failure was obviously a consequence thereof that numerous of stools (which kept both 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 middle of the horizontal piece of each of such stools; * the stools were not fastened; and * the stool collapse took place during the casting of the slab.
The Contractor's Disagreement
The Contractor, firstly, took the position that it hadn't been liable for the destruction as it had built the layer of concrete according to the engineer's specification, which had been allegedly flawed.
Furthermore ,, the contractor trusted the fact that the engineer had approved the way the reinforcement was mounted.
Ultimately, the contractor remarked that the engineer's design didn't show that there needed to be a couple of bars of top mat per stool, nor how the stools must be fastened.
The contractor maintained that it failed to spot the failure of the top mat, nor did it realize that the stools hadn't been tied. It is apparent from the contractor's proof that he left every pertinent decision related to the set up of the reinforcement to the engineer as well as the steel contractor.
The Employer's Debate
The employer contended that: * It was the job of the contractor to build the support mats and also to build and maintain same in the proper position.
* Proper building procedure required that, wherever possible, two bars of the top mat must be placed on each stool and that the feet of the stools be bound. There isn't any reason for an engineer to suggest these methods on his drawings because these needs are part of proper building practice and entirely the contractor's obligation.
* The contractor should have recognized the failure during the pouring process and really should have stopped the task to be able to seek advice from the engineer.
* If the contractor had viewed its obligations as laid out previously, the collapse would not have taken place.
The Court's Approach
The Court agreed with the employer's position.
There was clearly no evidence corroborating the allegation that the engineer's design was faulty. Even though the engineer had authorised the steel structure on site, he did not carry a responsibility to supervise the job of the contractor. It was the contractor's choice the way it performed the construction job and it cannot switch the blame on the engineer in the circumstance where it did not perform its work in a suitable and workmanlike manner. It had also been the contractor's duty to make sure that the building of a design is free of complications.
In the Court's view, it had been reasonable of the engineer to expect that the contractor would make sure correct assembly of the strengthening mat by identifying any displacement and taking appropriate action whenever it occurred.
The Court further responded that the engineer had just a contractual duty to the client and not towards the contractor. The engineer didn't even have a responsibility to get involved if the contractor seem to be failing (unless it was apparent to the engineer that the contractor did not know his business and would definitely go wrong). Such a responsibility to get involved would only occur should the contractor seem to be set on an incredible act of recklessness.
The Court consequently held that the slab had failed because the contractor failed to carry out the development in a suitable and workmanlike fashion.
Bottom line
* An engineer's duties aren't extended outside of what is set out as part of his agreement with his employer.
* An engineer will therefore not have the duty to monitor the job of a contractor, unless he is contractually required to do so and he can't be held liable for a third party's contractual violation.
In Strijdom Park Extension 6 (Pty) Ltd v Abcon (Pty) Ltd this issue was raised and cleared up by the Supreme Court of Appeal.
Background
On this matter the engineer was hired by Strijdom Park Extension 6 (Pty) Ltd ("the employer") to develop a steel reinforced concrete slab isolating the bottom floor from the basement of a factory that has been constructed by Abcon (Pty) Ltd ("the contractor"). The concrete slab failed two years after occupation of the facility had been taken.
The business implemented an insurance claim for damages against the service provider and the engineer, claiming that they had breached their particular contracts with the employer. The claim against the engineer was settled, however the claim against the company was heard on appeal.
The parties were convinced that the failure must've taken place during the casting of the slab when the bare concrete was poured over and in to the network of strengthening steel.
The dilemma which had to be settled upon appeal was, to begin with, whether the malfunction of the slab was at least partly as a result of a faulty engineering design and, secondly, if the engineer had a accountability towards the contractor.
The Court considered the below undeniable evidence: * the catastrophe was due to the collapse of the higher of two criss-cross mats of steel bars that were covered inside the concrete floor to reinforce it; * the failure was obviously a consequence thereof that numerous of stools (which kept both 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 middle of the horizontal piece of each of such stools; * the stools were not fastened; and * the stool collapse took place during the casting of the slab.
The Contractor's Disagreement
The Contractor, firstly, took the position that it hadn't been liable for the destruction as it had built the layer of concrete according to the engineer's specification, which had been allegedly flawed.
Furthermore ,, the contractor trusted the fact that the engineer had approved the way the reinforcement was mounted.
Ultimately, the contractor remarked that the engineer's design didn't show that there needed to be a couple of bars of top mat per stool, nor how the stools must be fastened.
The contractor maintained that it failed to spot the failure of the top mat, nor did it realize that the stools hadn't been tied. It is apparent from the contractor's proof that he left every pertinent decision related to the set up of the reinforcement to the engineer as well as the steel contractor.
The Employer's Debate
The employer contended that: * It was the job of the contractor to build the support mats and also to build and maintain same in the proper position.
* Proper building procedure required that, wherever possible, two bars of the top mat must be placed on each stool and that the feet of the stools be bound. There isn't any reason for an engineer to suggest these methods on his drawings because these needs are part of proper building practice and entirely the contractor's obligation.
* The contractor should have recognized the failure during the pouring process and really should have stopped the task to be able to seek advice from the engineer.
* If the contractor had viewed its obligations as laid out previously, the collapse would not have taken place.
The Court's Approach
The Court agreed with the employer's position.
There was clearly no evidence corroborating the allegation that the engineer's design was faulty. Even though the engineer had authorised the steel structure on site, he did not carry a responsibility to supervise the job of the contractor. It was the contractor's choice the way it performed the construction job and it cannot switch the blame on the engineer in the circumstance where it did not perform its work in a suitable and workmanlike manner. It had also been the contractor's duty to make sure that the building of a design is free of complications.
In the Court's view, it had been reasonable of the engineer to expect that the contractor would make sure correct assembly of the strengthening mat by identifying any displacement and taking appropriate action whenever it occurred.
The Court further responded that the engineer had just a contractual duty to the client and not towards the contractor. The engineer didn't even have a responsibility to get involved if the contractor seem to be failing (unless it was apparent to the engineer that the contractor did not know his business and would definitely go wrong). Such a responsibility to get involved would only occur should the contractor seem to be set on an incredible act of recklessness.
The Court consequently held that the slab had failed because the contractor failed to carry out the development in a suitable and workmanlike fashion.
Bottom line
* An engineer's duties aren't extended outside of what is set out as part of his agreement with his employer.
* An engineer will therefore not have the duty to monitor the job of a contractor, unless he is contractually required to do so and he can't be held liable for a third party's contractual violation.
About the Author:
Get accurate infomation on engineering and construction law. Let professional construction attorneys advise you on your duties and obligations.
0 comments:
Post a Comment