The challenge of what the scope of the engineer's duties are, normally come up every time an engineered structure fails. One notable component to this question is whether or not an engineer's obligations stretch over and above a contractual responsibility 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 Supreme Court of Appeal.
Background
In this matter the engineer was doing work for Strijdom Park Extension 6 (Pty) Ltd ("the employer") to develop a steel reinforced layer of concrete separating the bottom floor from the basement of a warehouse that has been erected by Abcon (Pty) Ltd ("the contractor"). The concrete slab failed 2 years after occupation of the facility had been taken.
The business instituted an insurance claim for harm against the contractor and the engineer, alleging they had breached their respective contracts with the company. The claim against the engineer was resolved, however the claim against the company was witnessed on appeal.
The parties were in agreement that the collapse must've taken place during the casting of the slab when the concrete floor was poured over and within the network of the reinforcing steel.
The dilemma which had to be decided on appeal was, to start with, whether the failure of the slab was at a minimum partly as a result of a flawed architectural design and, secondly, if the engineer had a accountability to the company.
The Court considered the following undeniable evidence: * the malfunction was due to the collapse of the higher of two criss-cross mats of steel bars which had been surrounded inside the cement to strengthen it; * the cave in was a result thereof that many of the 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 centre of the horizontal piece of everyone of such stools; * the stools were not fixed; and * the stool failure occurred from the creation of the slab.
The Contractor's Debate
The Contractor, firstly, took the position that it was not accountable for the damages because it had developed the concrete slab as outlined by the engineer's specification, which had been purportedly defective.
Secondly, the contractor trusted the fact the engineer had authorised the way the support was set up.
Ultimately, the contractor pointed out that the engineer's design did not reveal that there had to be two bars of top mat per stool, nor how the stools needed to be mounted.
The contractor claimed that it just didn't notice the failure of the upper mat, nor did it appreciate that the stools had not been tied. It is apparent from the contractor's evidence that he left every relevant choice associated with the assembly of the reinforcement to the engineer as well as the steel contractor.
The Employer's Debate
The business asserted that: * It was the job of the contractor to assemble the strengthening mats as well as maintain same in the correct place.
* Correct construction practice demanded that, whenever you can, two bars of the top mat has to be placed on each stool and that the feet of the stools be bound. There is no reason for an engineer to point out these procedures on his drawings because these requirements are part of good construction procedure and entirely the contractor's duty.
* The contractor should have recognized the collapse throughout the pouring procedure and should have halted the task to be able to seek advice from the engineer.
* If the contractor had seen its duties as set out above, the failure will not have occured.
The Court's Approach
The Court agreed with the employer's stance.
There was no proof corroborating the allegation that the engineer's design was faulty. Even though the engineer had authorised the steel structure on location, he did not carry a responsibility to monitor the task of the contractor. It was the contractor's decision how it executed the construction job and it can't switch the blame towards engineer in the circumstance where it didn't conduct its work in a proper and workmanlike manner. It had also been the contractor's obligation to make sure that the building of a design is free of flaws.
Inside the Court's perspective, it was acceptable of the engineer to expect that the contractor would guarantee proper construction of the reinforcement mat by identifying any displacement and taking correct action when it occurred.
The Court additionally clarified that the engineer had simply a contractual obligation to its customer and not to the contractor. The engineer didn't even have a duty to get involved if the contractor appear to be going wrong (unless it was obvious to the engineer that the contractor was not sure of his business and would definitely get it wrong). Such an obligation to intercede would only occur should the contractor seem set on an incredible act of carelessness.
The Court for that reason decided that the slab had broken because the contractor failed to carry out the development in a proper and workmanlike style.
Conclusion
* An engineer's duties aren't extended outside of what is put down in his contract with his employer.
* An engineer will therefore not have the obligation to watch over the task of a contractor, unless he is contractually expected to do so and he can't be held accountable for a third party's contractual violation.
In Strijdom Park Extension 6 (Pty) Ltd v Abcon (Pty) Ltd this concern was raised and cleared up by way of the Supreme Court of Appeal.
Background
In this matter the engineer was doing work for Strijdom Park Extension 6 (Pty) Ltd ("the employer") to develop a steel reinforced layer of concrete separating the bottom floor from the basement of a warehouse that has been erected by Abcon (Pty) Ltd ("the contractor"). The concrete slab failed 2 years after occupation of the facility had been taken.
The business instituted an insurance claim for harm against the contractor and the engineer, alleging they had breached their respective contracts with the company. The claim against the engineer was resolved, however the claim against the company was witnessed on appeal.
The parties were in agreement that the collapse must've taken place during the casting of the slab when the concrete floor was poured over and within the network of the reinforcing steel.
The dilemma which had to be decided on appeal was, to start with, whether the failure of the slab was at a minimum partly as a result of a flawed architectural design and, secondly, if the engineer had a accountability to the company.
The Court considered the following undeniable evidence: * the malfunction was due to the collapse of the higher of two criss-cross mats of steel bars which had been surrounded inside the cement to strengthen it; * the cave in was a result thereof that many of the 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 centre of the horizontal piece of everyone of such stools; * the stools were not fixed; and * the stool failure occurred from the creation of the slab.
The Contractor's Debate
The Contractor, firstly, took the position that it was not accountable for the damages because it had developed the concrete slab as outlined by the engineer's specification, which had been purportedly defective.
Secondly, the contractor trusted the fact the engineer had authorised the way the support was set up.
Ultimately, the contractor pointed out that the engineer's design did not reveal that there had to be two bars of top mat per stool, nor how the stools needed to be mounted.
The contractor claimed that it just didn't notice the failure of the upper mat, nor did it appreciate that the stools had not been tied. It is apparent from the contractor's evidence that he left every relevant choice associated with the assembly of the reinforcement to the engineer as well as the steel contractor.
The Employer's Debate
The business asserted that: * It was the job of the contractor to assemble the strengthening mats as well as maintain same in the correct place.
* Correct construction practice demanded that, whenever you can, two bars of the top mat has to be placed on each stool and that the feet of the stools be bound. There is no reason for an engineer to point out these procedures on his drawings because these requirements are part of good construction procedure and entirely the contractor's duty.
* The contractor should have recognized the collapse throughout the pouring procedure and should have halted the task to be able to seek advice from the engineer.
* If the contractor had seen its duties as set out above, the failure will not have occured.
The Court's Approach
The Court agreed with the employer's stance.
There was no proof corroborating the allegation that the engineer's design was faulty. Even though the engineer had authorised the steel structure on location, he did not carry a responsibility to monitor the task of the contractor. It was the contractor's decision how it executed the construction job and it can't switch the blame towards engineer in the circumstance where it didn't conduct its work in a proper and workmanlike manner. It had also been the contractor's obligation to make sure that the building of a design is free of flaws.
Inside the Court's perspective, it was acceptable of the engineer to expect that the contractor would guarantee proper construction of the reinforcement mat by identifying any displacement and taking correct action when it occurred.
The Court additionally clarified that the engineer had simply a contractual obligation to its customer and not to the contractor. The engineer didn't even have a duty to get involved if the contractor appear to be going wrong (unless it was obvious to the engineer that the contractor was not sure of his business and would definitely get it wrong). Such an obligation to intercede would only occur should the contractor seem set on an incredible act of carelessness.
The Court for that reason decided that the slab had broken because the contractor failed to carry out the development in a proper and workmanlike style.
Conclusion
* An engineer's duties aren't extended outside of what is put down in his contract with his employer.
* An engineer will therefore not have the obligation to watch over the task of a contractor, unless he is contractually expected to do so and he can't be held accountable for a third party's contractual violation.
About the Author:
Get accurate infomation on engineering and construction law. Let professional construction lawyers advise you on your responsibilities and obligations.
0 comments:
Post a Comment