The challenge of what the extent of an engineer's duties are, generally come into play every time a constructed component breaks. One well known part to this query is whether or not an engineer's duties stretch beyond a contractual responsibility with its employer.
In Strijdom Park Extension 6 (Pty) Ltd v Abcon (Pty) Ltd this problem was raised and clarified via the High Court of Appeal.
History
In this case the engineer was doing work for Strijdom Park Extension 6 (Pty) Ltd ("the employer") to develop a steel reinforced layer of concrete separating the ground floor from the attic of a factory which was set up by Abcon (Pty) Ltd ("the contractor"). The concrete slab failed two years after occupation of the facility was taken.
The business instituted a claim for loss against the service provider and the engineer, claiming that they had breached their individual agreements with the company. The claim against the engineer was settled, however the claim against the contractor was heard on appeal.
The parties were in complete agreement that the failure must-have occurred throughout the casting of the slab when the cement was placed over and within the network of strengthening steel.
The dilemma that had to be settled upon appeal was, to begin with, whether the breakdown of the slab was at a minimum partly due to a defective engineering design and, subsequently, whether the engineer had a duty to the building contractors.
The Court considered the below undeniable proof: * the malfunction was a result of the collapse of the higher of two woven mats of steel bars which had been surrounded inside the cement to strengthen it; * the collapse had been a consequence thereof that many of the 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 sitting on the middle of the horizontal piece of each of such stools; * the stools had not been fixed; and * the stool break took place during the creation of the slab.
The Contractor's Disagreement
The Contractor, firstly, took the stance that it hadn't been responsible for the destruction because it had made the layer of concrete according to the engineer's design, that had been supposedly flawed.
Furthermore ,, the contractor relied on the fact the engineer had authorised the way in which the support was installed.
Ultimately, the contractor remarked that the engineer's design failed to indicate that there had to be two bars of top mat per stool, nor how the stools had to be fastened.
The contractor claimed that it did not notice the collapse of the upper mat, nor did it realize that the stools hadn't been tied up. It is apparent from the contractor's evidence that he left every relevant decision regarding the construction of the reinforcement to the engineer as well as the steel contractor.
The Employer's Argument
The employer contended that: * It was the obligation of the contractor to assemble the strengthening mats as well as maintain same in the right place.
* Correct building procedure required that, whenever you can, two bars of the upper mat must 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 since these requirements are part and parcel of good development procedure and exclusively the contractor's responsibility.
* The contractor must have recognized the failure during the pouring process and should have discontinued the work to be able to seek advice from the engineer.
* If the contractor had observed its obligations as set out previously, the collapse will not have transpired.
The Court's Approach
The Court concurred with the employer's stance.
There was no proof supporting the claim that the engineer's design was flawed. Even though the engineer had accredited the steel structure on site, he did not carry a responsibility to oversee the task of the contractor. It was the contractor's choice how it carried out the construction work and it cannot shift the blame towards engineer in the situation where it did not conduct its work in a proper and workmanlike fashion. It had also been the contractor's duty to ensure the making of a design is free of errors.
Inside the Court's viewpoint, it was sensible of the engineer to expect that the contractor would guarantee proper construction of the reinforcement mat by observing any displacement and taking suitable action whenever it occurred.
The Court additionally clarified that the engineer had simply a contractual duty to its customer and not towards the contractor. The engineer didn't actually have a responsibility to get involved should the contractor appear to be going wrong (unless it was evident to the engineer that the contractor was not sure of his job and would definitely make a mistake). Such an obligation to intercede would only happen should the contractor seem set on an remarkable act of carelessness.
The Court as a result held that the slab had broken because the contractor failed to carry out the construction in a correct and workmanlike manner.
Bottom line
* An engineer's obligations aren't extended beyond what is arranged as part of his agreement with his employer.
* An engineer will therefore not have the duty to supervise the task of a contractor, unless he is contractually expected to do so and he cannot be held liable for another party's contractual violation.
In Strijdom Park Extension 6 (Pty) Ltd v Abcon (Pty) Ltd this problem was raised and clarified via the High Court of Appeal.
History
In this case the engineer was doing work for Strijdom Park Extension 6 (Pty) Ltd ("the employer") to develop a steel reinforced layer of concrete separating the ground floor from the attic of a factory which was set up by Abcon (Pty) Ltd ("the contractor"). The concrete slab failed two years after occupation of the facility was taken.
The business instituted a claim for loss against the service provider and the engineer, claiming that they had breached their individual agreements with the company. The claim against the engineer was settled, however the claim against the contractor was heard on appeal.
The parties were in complete agreement that the failure must-have occurred throughout the casting of the slab when the cement was placed over and within the network of strengthening steel.
The dilemma that had to be settled upon appeal was, to begin with, whether the breakdown of the slab was at a minimum partly due to a defective engineering design and, subsequently, whether the engineer had a duty to the building contractors.
The Court considered the below undeniable proof: * the malfunction was a result of the collapse of the higher of two woven mats of steel bars which had been surrounded inside the cement to strengthen it; * the collapse had been a consequence thereof that many of the 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 sitting on the middle of the horizontal piece of each of such stools; * the stools had not been fixed; and * the stool break took place during the creation of the slab.
The Contractor's Disagreement
The Contractor, firstly, took the stance that it hadn't been responsible for the destruction because it had made the layer of concrete according to the engineer's design, that had been supposedly flawed.
Furthermore ,, the contractor relied on the fact the engineer had authorised the way in which the support was installed.
Ultimately, the contractor remarked that the engineer's design failed to indicate that there had to be two bars of top mat per stool, nor how the stools had to be fastened.
The contractor claimed that it did not notice the collapse of the upper mat, nor did it realize that the stools hadn't been tied up. It is apparent from the contractor's evidence that he left every relevant decision regarding the construction of the reinforcement to the engineer as well as the steel contractor.
The Employer's Argument
The employer contended that: * It was the obligation of the contractor to assemble the strengthening mats as well as maintain same in the right place.
* Correct building procedure required that, whenever you can, two bars of the upper mat must 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 since these requirements are part and parcel of good development procedure and exclusively the contractor's responsibility.
* The contractor must have recognized the failure during the pouring process and should have discontinued the work to be able to seek advice from the engineer.
* If the contractor had observed its obligations as set out previously, the collapse will not have transpired.
The Court's Approach
The Court concurred with the employer's stance.
There was no proof supporting the claim that the engineer's design was flawed. Even though the engineer had accredited the steel structure on site, he did not carry a responsibility to oversee the task of the contractor. It was the contractor's choice how it carried out the construction work and it cannot shift the blame towards engineer in the situation where it did not conduct its work in a proper and workmanlike fashion. It had also been the contractor's duty to ensure the making of a design is free of errors.
Inside the Court's viewpoint, it was sensible of the engineer to expect that the contractor would guarantee proper construction of the reinforcement mat by observing any displacement and taking suitable action whenever it occurred.
The Court additionally clarified that the engineer had simply a contractual duty to its customer and not towards the contractor. The engineer didn't actually have a responsibility to get involved should the contractor appear to be going wrong (unless it was evident to the engineer that the contractor was not sure of his job and would definitely make a mistake). Such an obligation to intercede would only happen should the contractor seem set on an remarkable act of carelessness.
The Court as a result held that the slab had broken because the contractor failed to carry out the construction in a correct and workmanlike manner.
Bottom line
* An engineer's obligations aren't extended beyond what is arranged as part of his agreement with his employer.
* An engineer will therefore not have the duty to supervise the task of a contractor, unless he is contractually expected to do so and he cannot be held liable for another 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.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire