The challenge of what the extent of an engineer's accountabilities are, generally come into play every time a constructed assembly falters. One notable element to this query is whether or not an engineer's obligations stretch beyond a contractual liability with its employer.
In Strijdom Park Extension 6 (Pty) Ltd v Abcon (Pty) Ltd this concern was raised and cleared up by way of the High Court of Appeal.
History
In this particular case the engineer was hired by Strijdom Park Extension 6 (Pty) Ltd ("the employer") to build a steel reinforced concrete slab isolating the bottom floor from the attic of a warehouse that was set up by Abcon (Pty) Ltd ("the contractor"). The concrete slab broke two years after occupation of the factory had been taken.
The business instituted a claim for harm to the service provider and the engineer, alleging that they breached their individual agreements with the employer. The claim against the engineer was resolved, however the claim against the contractor was heard on appeal.
The parties were convinced that the collapse must've occurred throughout the casting of the slab when the cement was placed over and inside the network of strengthening steel.
The dilemma which had to be decided on appeal was, to start with, whether or not the breakdown of the slab was at a minimum to some extent as a result of a flawed architectural design and, secondly, whether the engineer had a accountability to the building contractors.
The Court considered the subsequent indisputable facts: * the failure was a result of the failure of the higher of two criss-cross mats of steel bars that were encased inside the concrete to reinforce it; * the cave in was a direct result thereof many of stools (which kept both mats apart) were found to have been bent out of shape; * the contact in between the upper mat and the stools was limited to one bar of the mat resting on the middle of the horizontal piece of each of such stools; * the stools had not been mounted; and * the stool failure took place during the casting of the slab.
The Contractor's Argument
The Contractor, firstly, took the stance that it was not to blame for the destruction since it had created the concrete slab as outlined by the engineer's design, which had been supposedly defective.
Subsequently, the contractor trusted the fact that the engineer had approved the way the support was mounted.
Last but not least, the contractor pointed out that the engineer's design did not indicate that there needed to be two bars of top mat per stool, nor how the stools must be secured.
The contractor claimed that it just didn't notice the collapse of the top mat, nor did it realize that the stools hadn't been tied. It is clear from the contractor's explanation that he left every appropriate choice associated with the construction of the reinforcement to the engineer as well as the steel contractor.
The Employer's Debate
The business contended that: * It was the obligation of the contractor to put together the support mats and to build and maintain same in the right position.
* Accurate development practice required that, whenever you can, two bars of the upper mat needs to be positioned on each stool and that the feet of the stools be tied. There is no reason for an engineer to suggest these practices on his drawings because these specifications are part and parcel of good development procedure and exclusively the contractor's responsibility.
* The contractor must have recognized the collapse throughout the pouring process and should have halted the work so as to consult the engineer.
* If the contractor had seen its responsibilities as set out previously, the failure will not have occurred.
The Court's Solution
The Court concurred with the employer's stance.
There was clearly no evidence corroborating the allegation that the engineer's design was defective. Even though the engineer had approved the steel structure on location, he did not have a obligation to oversee the work of the contractor. It was the contractor's decision how it carried out the construction job and it cannot switch the blame to the engineer in the position where it did not carry out its work in a suitable and workmanlike manner. It was also the contractor's responsibility to make certain the building of a design is free of errors.
Inside the Court's view, it was reasonable of the engineer to expect that the contractor would ensure proper construction of the strengthening mat by noticing any displacement and taking suitable action if it occurred.
The Court further responded that the engineer had merely a contractual obligation to the client and never to the contractor. The engineer did not actually have a obligation to get involved if the contractor seem to be going wrong (unless it was noticeable to the engineer that the contractor was not sure of his job and would definitely get it wrong). Such a duty to get involved would only happen if the contractor seem set on an extraordinary act of recklessness.
The Court for that reason decided that the slab had broken because the contractor did not execute the construction in a proper and workmanlike fashion.
Decision
* An engineer's obligations are not extended outside of what is put down as part of his contract with his employer.
* An engineer will therefore not have the obligation to watch over the job of a contractor, unless he is contractually forced to do so and he can't be held accountable for another party's contractual breach.
In Strijdom Park Extension 6 (Pty) Ltd v Abcon (Pty) Ltd this concern was raised and cleared up by way of the High Court of Appeal.
History
In this particular case the engineer was hired by Strijdom Park Extension 6 (Pty) Ltd ("the employer") to build a steel reinforced concrete slab isolating the bottom floor from the attic of a warehouse that was set up by Abcon (Pty) Ltd ("the contractor"). The concrete slab broke two years after occupation of the factory had been taken.
The business instituted a claim for harm to the service provider and the engineer, alleging that they breached their individual agreements with the employer. The claim against the engineer was resolved, however the claim against the contractor was heard on appeal.
The parties were convinced that the collapse must've occurred throughout the casting of the slab when the cement was placed over and inside the network of strengthening steel.
The dilemma which had to be decided on appeal was, to start with, whether or not the breakdown of the slab was at a minimum to some extent as a result of a flawed architectural design and, secondly, whether the engineer had a accountability to the building contractors.
The Court considered the subsequent indisputable facts: * the failure was a result of the failure of the higher of two criss-cross mats of steel bars that were encased inside the concrete to reinforce it; * the cave in was a direct result thereof many of stools (which kept both mats apart) were found to have been bent out of shape; * the contact in between the upper mat and the stools was limited to one bar of the mat resting on the middle of the horizontal piece of each of such stools; * the stools had not been mounted; and * the stool failure took place during the casting of the slab.
The Contractor's Argument
The Contractor, firstly, took the stance that it was not to blame for the destruction since it had created the concrete slab as outlined by the engineer's design, which had been supposedly defective.
Subsequently, the contractor trusted the fact that the engineer had approved the way the support was mounted.
Last but not least, the contractor pointed out that the engineer's design did not indicate that there needed to be two bars of top mat per stool, nor how the stools must be secured.
The contractor claimed that it just didn't notice the collapse of the top mat, nor did it realize that the stools hadn't been tied. It is clear from the contractor's explanation that he left every appropriate choice associated with the construction of the reinforcement to the engineer as well as the steel contractor.
The Employer's Debate
The business contended that: * It was the obligation of the contractor to put together the support mats and to build and maintain same in the right position.
* Accurate development practice required that, whenever you can, two bars of the upper mat needs to be positioned on each stool and that the feet of the stools be tied. There is no reason for an engineer to suggest these practices on his drawings because these specifications are part and parcel of good development procedure and exclusively the contractor's responsibility.
* The contractor must have recognized the collapse throughout the pouring process and should have halted the work so as to consult the engineer.
* If the contractor had seen its responsibilities as set out previously, the failure will not have occurred.
The Court's Solution
The Court concurred with the employer's stance.
There was clearly no evidence corroborating the allegation that the engineer's design was defective. Even though the engineer had approved the steel structure on location, he did not have a obligation to oversee the work of the contractor. It was the contractor's decision how it carried out the construction job and it cannot switch the blame to the engineer in the position where it did not carry out its work in a suitable and workmanlike manner. It was also the contractor's responsibility to make certain the building of a design is free of errors.
Inside the Court's view, it was reasonable of the engineer to expect that the contractor would ensure proper construction of the strengthening mat by noticing any displacement and taking suitable action if it occurred.
The Court further responded that the engineer had merely a contractual obligation to the client and never to the contractor. The engineer did not actually have a obligation to get involved if the contractor seem to be going wrong (unless it was noticeable to the engineer that the contractor was not sure of his job and would definitely get it wrong). Such a duty to get involved would only happen if the contractor seem set on an extraordinary act of recklessness.
The Court for that reason decided that the slab had broken because the contractor did not execute the construction in a proper and workmanlike fashion.
Decision
* An engineer's obligations are not extended outside of what is put down as part of his contract with his employer.
* An engineer will therefore not have the obligation to watch over the job of a contractor, unless he is contractually forced to do so and he can't be held accountable for another party's contractual breach.
About the Author:
Get accurate infomation on engineering and construction disputes. Let professional construction lawyers advise you on your duties and obligations.
No comments:
Post a Comment