The question of what the extent of an engineer's obligations are, generally come into play when an engineered structure breaks down. One notable element to this question is whether or not an engineer's responsibilities stretch beyond 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 way of the High Court of Appeal.
Background
On this matter the engineer was doing work for Strijdom Park Extension 6 (Pty) Ltd ("the employer") to create a steel reinforced layer of concrete splitting up the bottom floor from the basement of a factory which was put up by Abcon (Pty) Ltd ("the contractor"). The concrete slab failed 2 years after occupation of the facility was taken.
The employer instituted an insurance claim for damages to the service provider and the engineer, claiming that they breached their particular contracts with the company. The claim against the engineer was resolved, however the claim against the company was witnessed on appeal.
The parties were convinced that the collapse must-have occurred throughout the casting of the slab when the cement was poured over and inside the network of the reinforcing steel.
The question which had to be settled upon appeal was, firstly, whether the failure of the slab was at least to some extent attributable to a flawed architectural design and, secondly, whether the engineer had a responsibility towards the building contractors.
The Court accounted for the subsequent undeniable facts: * the catastrophe was due to the failure of the upper of two woven mats of steel bars which had been wrapped in the cement to reinforce it; * the collapse had been a direct result thereof that many of stools (which kept the two mats apart) were found to have been bent out of shape; * the contact between the upper mat and the stools was limited to one bar of the mat resting on the centre of the horizontal piece of each of such stools; * the stools weren't fixed; and * the stool failure occurred during the casting of the slab.
The Contractor's Disagreement
The Contractor, firstly, took the position that it hadn't been responsible for the destruction since it had built the layer of concrete according to the engineer's design, which had been purportedly flawed.
Furthermore ,, the contractor trusted the fact the engineer had authorised the way the support was mounted.
Ultimately, the contractor remarked that the engineer's design failed to reveal that there would have to be two bars of the top mat per stool, nor that the stools needed to be fixed.
The contractor claimed that it didn't notice the failure of the top mat, nor did it realize that the stools hadn't been tied. It is obvious from the contractor's proof that he left every relevant decision associated with the assembly of the reinforcement to the engineer as well as the steel contractor.
The Employer's Debate
The business contended that: * It was the job of the contractor to put together the support mats and to maintain same in the right place.
* Accurate engineering practice demanded that, wherever possible, two bars of the upper mat must be positioned on each stool and that the feet of the stools be tied. There isn't any reason for an engineer to point out these practices on his drawings because these requirements are part of good building practice and solely the contractor's obligation.
* The contractor ought to have detected the collapse during the pouring process and really should have discontinued the job to be able to seek advice from the engineer.
* If the contractor had seen its duties as laid out above, the collapse will not have occured.
The Court's Approach
The Court agreed with the employer's stance.
There was clearly no facts supporting the allegation that the engineer's design was faulty. Even though the engineer had approved the steel structure on site, he did not carry a responsibility to supervise the work of the contractor. It was the contractor's decision how it completed the construction work and it can't transfer the blame to the engineer in the circumstance where it didn't conduct its work in a suitable and workmanlike manner. It had also been the contractor's responsibility to make sure that the construction of a design is free of complications.
In the Court's viewpoint, it had been sensible of the engineer to anticipate that the contractor would guarantee correct assembly of the reinforcement mat by noticing any displacement and taking correct action when it occurred.
The Court further clarified that the engineer had simply a contractual obligation to its client and not towards the contractor. The engineer didn't actually have a obligation to intervene if the contractor seem to be going wrong (unless it was noticeable to the engineer that the contractor was not sure of his business and was going to go wrong). Such a responsibility to get involved would only occur should the contractor appear set on an incredible act of carelessness.
The Court consequently held that the slab had broken because the contractor did not carry out the development in a suitable and workmanlike style.
Conclusion
* An engineer's duties are not prolonged outside of what is set out in his agreement with his employer.
* An engineer will therefore not have the obligation to monitor the work of a contractor, unless he is contractually expected to do so and he can't be held responsible 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 way of the High Court of Appeal.
Background
On this matter the engineer was doing work for Strijdom Park Extension 6 (Pty) Ltd ("the employer") to create a steel reinforced layer of concrete splitting up the bottom floor from the basement of a factory which was put up by Abcon (Pty) Ltd ("the contractor"). The concrete slab failed 2 years after occupation of the facility was taken.
The employer instituted an insurance claim for damages to the service provider and the engineer, claiming that they breached their particular contracts with the company. The claim against the engineer was resolved, however the claim against the company was witnessed on appeal.
The parties were convinced that the collapse must-have occurred throughout the casting of the slab when the cement was poured over and inside the network of the reinforcing steel.
The question which had to be settled upon appeal was, firstly, whether the failure of the slab was at least to some extent attributable to a flawed architectural design and, secondly, whether the engineer had a responsibility towards the building contractors.
The Court accounted for the subsequent undeniable facts: * the catastrophe was due to the failure of the upper of two woven mats of steel bars which had been wrapped in the cement to reinforce it; * the collapse had been a direct result thereof that many of stools (which kept the two mats apart) were found to have been bent out of shape; * the contact between the upper mat and the stools was limited to one bar of the mat resting on the centre of the horizontal piece of each of such stools; * the stools weren't fixed; and * the stool failure occurred during the casting of the slab.
The Contractor's Disagreement
The Contractor, firstly, took the position that it hadn't been responsible for the destruction since it had built the layer of concrete according to the engineer's design, which had been purportedly flawed.
Furthermore ,, the contractor trusted the fact the engineer had authorised the way the support was mounted.
Ultimately, the contractor remarked that the engineer's design failed to reveal that there would have to be two bars of the top mat per stool, nor that the stools needed to be fixed.
The contractor claimed that it didn't notice the failure of the top mat, nor did it realize that the stools hadn't been tied. It is obvious from the contractor's proof that he left every relevant decision associated with the assembly of the reinforcement to the engineer as well as the steel contractor.
The Employer's Debate
The business contended that: * It was the job of the contractor to put together the support mats and to maintain same in the right place.
* Accurate engineering practice demanded that, wherever possible, two bars of the upper mat must be positioned on each stool and that the feet of the stools be tied. There isn't any reason for an engineer to point out these practices on his drawings because these requirements are part of good building practice and solely the contractor's obligation.
* The contractor ought to have detected the collapse during the pouring process and really should have discontinued the job to be able to seek advice from the engineer.
* If the contractor had seen its duties as laid out above, the collapse will not have occured.
The Court's Approach
The Court agreed with the employer's stance.
There was clearly no facts supporting the allegation that the engineer's design was faulty. Even though the engineer had approved the steel structure on site, he did not carry a responsibility to supervise the work of the contractor. It was the contractor's decision how it completed the construction work and it can't transfer the blame to the engineer in the circumstance where it didn't conduct its work in a suitable and workmanlike manner. It had also been the contractor's responsibility to make sure that the construction of a design is free of complications.
In the Court's viewpoint, it had been sensible of the engineer to anticipate that the contractor would guarantee correct assembly of the reinforcement mat by noticing any displacement and taking correct action when it occurred.
The Court further clarified that the engineer had simply a contractual obligation to its client and not towards the contractor. The engineer didn't actually have a obligation to intervene if the contractor seem to be going wrong (unless it was noticeable to the engineer that the contractor was not sure of his business and was going to go wrong). Such a responsibility to get involved would only occur should the contractor appear set on an incredible act of carelessness.
The Court consequently held that the slab had broken because the contractor did not carry out the development in a suitable and workmanlike style.
Conclusion
* An engineer's duties are not prolonged outside of what is set out in his agreement with his employer.
* An engineer will therefore not have the obligation to monitor the work of a contractor, unless he is contractually expected to do so and he can't be held responsible for a third party's contractual violation.
About the Author:
Get accurate infomation on construction and engineering law. Let professional construction lawyers advise you on your duties and obligations.