The concern of what the scope of the engineer's obligations are, generally come into play every time an engineered component fails. One notable part to this question is whether an engineer's accountabilities extend over and above a contractual liability with its employer.
In Strijdom Park Extension 6 (Pty) Ltd v Abcon (Pty) Ltd this problem was raised and cleared up by the High Court of Appeal.
Background
In this particular matter the engineer was doing work for Strijdom Park Extension 6 (Pty) Ltd ("the employer") to build a steel reinforced layer of concrete splitting up the bottom floor from the basement of a warehouse that was set up by Abcon (Pty) Ltd ("the contractor"). The layer of concrete broke two years after occupation of the warehouse was taken.
The business instituted an insurance claim for damages to the contractor and the engineer, claiming that they had breached their individual contracts with the company. The claim against the engineer was resolved, however the claim against the contractor was witnessed on appeal.
The parties were in complete agreement that the failure must-have occurred throughout the casting of the slab when the concrete was poured over and into the network of reinforcing steel.
The dilemma that had to be decided upon appeal was, firstly, whether the failure of the slab was at least to some extent due to a defective architectural design and, secondly, whether the engineer had a accountability towards the building contractors.
The Court took into account the below undisputed facts: * the malfunction was a result of the failure of the upper of two woven mats of steel bars that was encased in the concrete floor to strengthen it; * the failure had been a consequence thereof many 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 limited to one bar of the mat sitting on the centre of the horizontal piece of everyone of such stools; * the stools weren't mounted; and * the stool cave in happened from the creation of the slab.
The Contractor's Disagreement
The Contractor, firstly, took the stance that it hadn't been accountable for the destruction since it had made the layer of concrete as outlined by the engineer's design, which was supposedly defective.
Secondly, the contractor relied on the fact the engineer had approved the way in which the support was mounted.
Finally, the contractor remarked that the engineer's design didn't reveal that there needed to be two bars of the top mat per stool, nor that the stools needed to be secured.
The contractor maintained that it didn't notice the failure of the upper mat, nor did it realise that the stools hadn't been tied up. It is clear from the contractor's evidence that he left every pertinent decision pertaining to the putting together of the support to the engineer as well as the steel contractor.
The Employer's Debate
The business asserted that: * It was the duty of the contractor to build the reinforcement mats as well as maintain same in the right position.
* Proper building practice required that, wherever possible, two bars of the upper mat should be positioned on each stool and that the feet of the stools be tied. There is no reason for an engineer to suggest these procedures on his drawings since these specifications are part of good building practice and exclusively the contractor's responsibility.
* The contractor really should have noticed the failure during the pouring process and should have ceased the work so as to consult the engineer.
* If the contractor had seen its obligations as set out previously, the collapse will not have taken place.
The Court's Approach
The Court agreed with the employer's stance.
There was clearly no facts corroborating the allegation that the engineer's design was faulty. Even though the engineer had accredited the steel structure on-site, he didn't have a duty to monitor the job of the contractor. It was the contractor's choice the way it executed the construction work and it cannot switch the blame on the engineer in the scenario where it didn't conduct its work in a suitable and workmanlike manner. It was also the contractor's duty to ensure the building of a design is free of defects.
In the Court's viewpoint, it was sensible of the engineer to anticipate that the contractor would guarantee proper assembly of the support mat by identifying any displacement and taking suitable action when it occurred.
The Court additionally responded that the engineer had only a contractual obligation to the client and never towards the contractor. The engineer didn't even have a duty to intervene should the contractor appear to be failing (unless it was obvious to the engineer that the contractor was not sure of his job and would definitely go wrong). Such a duty to get involved would only occur should the contractor seem set on an incredible act of carelessness.
The Court consequently decided that the slab had failed because the contractor did not execute the development in a suitable and workmanlike manner.
Bottom line
* An engineer's duties aren't extended outside of what's laid out in his contract 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 breach.
In Strijdom Park Extension 6 (Pty) Ltd v Abcon (Pty) Ltd this problem was raised and cleared up by the High Court of Appeal.
Background
In this particular matter the engineer was doing work for Strijdom Park Extension 6 (Pty) Ltd ("the employer") to build a steel reinforced layer of concrete splitting up the bottom floor from the basement of a warehouse that was set up by Abcon (Pty) Ltd ("the contractor"). The layer of concrete broke two years after occupation of the warehouse was taken.
The business instituted an insurance claim for damages to the contractor and the engineer, claiming that they had breached their individual contracts with the company. The claim against the engineer was resolved, however the claim against the contractor was witnessed on appeal.
The parties were in complete agreement that the failure must-have occurred throughout the casting of the slab when the concrete was poured over and into the network of reinforcing steel.
The dilemma that had to be decided upon appeal was, firstly, whether the failure of the slab was at least to some extent due to a defective architectural design and, secondly, whether the engineer had a accountability towards the building contractors.
The Court took into account the below undisputed facts: * the malfunction was a result of the failure of the upper of two woven mats of steel bars that was encased in the concrete floor to strengthen it; * the failure had been a consequence thereof many 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 limited to one bar of the mat sitting on the centre of the horizontal piece of everyone of such stools; * the stools weren't mounted; and * the stool cave in happened from the creation of the slab.
The Contractor's Disagreement
The Contractor, firstly, took the stance that it hadn't been accountable for the destruction since it had made the layer of concrete as outlined by the engineer's design, which was supposedly defective.
Secondly, the contractor relied on the fact the engineer had approved the way in which the support was mounted.
Finally, the contractor remarked that the engineer's design didn't reveal that there needed to be two bars of the top mat per stool, nor that the stools needed to be secured.
The contractor maintained that it didn't notice the failure of the upper mat, nor did it realise that the stools hadn't been tied up. It is clear from the contractor's evidence that he left every pertinent decision pertaining to the putting together of the support to the engineer as well as the steel contractor.
The Employer's Debate
The business asserted that: * It was the duty of the contractor to build the reinforcement mats as well as maintain same in the right position.
* Proper building practice required that, wherever possible, two bars of the upper mat should be positioned on each stool and that the feet of the stools be tied. There is no reason for an engineer to suggest these procedures on his drawings since these specifications are part of good building practice and exclusively the contractor's responsibility.
* The contractor really should have noticed the failure during the pouring process and should have ceased the work so as to consult the engineer.
* If the contractor had seen its obligations as set out previously, the collapse will not have taken place.
The Court's Approach
The Court agreed with the employer's stance.
There was clearly no facts corroborating the allegation that the engineer's design was faulty. Even though the engineer had accredited the steel structure on-site, he didn't have a duty to monitor the job of the contractor. It was the contractor's choice the way it executed the construction work and it cannot switch the blame on the engineer in the scenario where it didn't conduct its work in a suitable and workmanlike manner. It was also the contractor's duty to ensure the building of a design is free of defects.
In the Court's viewpoint, it was sensible of the engineer to anticipate that the contractor would guarantee proper assembly of the support mat by identifying any displacement and taking suitable action when it occurred.
The Court additionally responded that the engineer had only a contractual obligation to the client and never towards the contractor. The engineer didn't even have a duty to intervene should the contractor appear to be failing (unless it was obvious to the engineer that the contractor was not sure of his job and would definitely go wrong). Such a duty to get involved would only occur should the contractor seem set on an incredible act of carelessness.
The Court consequently decided that the slab had failed because the contractor did not execute the development in a suitable and workmanlike manner.
Bottom line
* An engineer's duties aren't extended outside of what's laid out in his contract 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 breach.
About the Author:
Get accurate infomation on engineering and construction law. Let professional construction attorneys advise you on your responsibilities and obligations.