My friend had an engineer design, tender, supervise and certify a renovation - the renovation was structurally unsafe, some of it collapsed, it didn't meet building regulations in many aspects, and he, the engineer, refused to give foundation certs and opening up works had to be done. He paid 10 visits to the property, gave certs of compliance when it was clearly visible there were many issues. A complaint was made to his professional body, but though he was suspended for 1 year, due to lack of care and diligence, lack of honesty, and integrity, lack of knowledge, his professional body said that there was no liability for the building works on the engineers part, but only on the builder, who was actually from the engineers panel - yet he admitted failing to do even a structural loading etc. Is this engineering Irish style!!! I didn't quite believe it until I read the report.
liability of engineers??
- Thread starter elainem
- Start date
DirectDevil
Registered User
- Messages
- 897
Look at this thread about something similar https://www.askaboutmoney.com/threa...igence-but-no-response-to-proceedings.204163/
You ask about the liability of engineers. Generally, engineers owe a reasonable duty of care to their clients and to anyone else who might reasonably foreseeably suffer injury in consequence of their negligence.
The engineer's professional body would have no jurisdiction to adjudicate any issues between the client and the engineer as far as civil liability is concerned - that is a matter for the courts.
The engineer's body might have civil jurisdiction if they were acting as arbitrators but I doubt, for several reasons, if that could actually happen.
The engineer's body are entitled to form their view on the issue of the building works in the context of their adjudication of the professional complaint.
That finding does not bind the relevant parties in relation to the issue of civil liability arising from professional negligence.
It could be that the builder does have some independent liability too but that would not excuse all of the deficiencies that arose.
One wonders what the effect would be, in practical terms, of a suspension for 1 year of an engineer. If I was a medical doctor and a professional complaint was upheld against me I could be removed temporarily or otherwise from the Medical Register. If that happened it would be a criminal offence to practice medicine after suspension from the register ! What stops an engineer from practicing after "suspension" ? Maybe his professional indemnity insurance is suspended but that might not stop some
I may have observed in the thread I referred to at the top of this post that in the worst case scenario the engineer could also have criminal culpability if people were killed or injured in a collapse directly referable back to the engineer's negligence. For example, there might be a case to answer for endangerment as per S.13 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997. That offence occurs where someone intentionally or recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of death or serious harm to another. Link http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/act/26/section/13/enacted/en/html#sec13
You ask about the liability of engineers. Generally, engineers owe a reasonable duty of care to their clients and to anyone else who might reasonably foreseeably suffer injury in consequence of their negligence.
The engineer's professional body would have no jurisdiction to adjudicate any issues between the client and the engineer as far as civil liability is concerned - that is a matter for the courts.
The engineer's body might have civil jurisdiction if they were acting as arbitrators but I doubt, for several reasons, if that could actually happen.
The engineer's body are entitled to form their view on the issue of the building works in the context of their adjudication of the professional complaint.
That finding does not bind the relevant parties in relation to the issue of civil liability arising from professional negligence.
It could be that the builder does have some independent liability too but that would not excuse all of the deficiencies that arose.
One wonders what the effect would be, in practical terms, of a suspension for 1 year of an engineer. If I was a medical doctor and a professional complaint was upheld against me I could be removed temporarily or otherwise from the Medical Register. If that happened it would be a criminal offence to practice medicine after suspension from the register ! What stops an engineer from practicing after "suspension" ? Maybe his professional indemnity insurance is suspended but that might not stop some
I may have observed in the thread I referred to at the top of this post that in the worst case scenario the engineer could also have criminal culpability if people were killed or injured in a collapse directly referable back to the engineer's negligence. For example, there might be a case to answer for endangerment as per S.13 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997. That offence occurs where someone intentionally or recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of death or serious harm to another. Link http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/act/26/section/13/enacted/en/html#sec13
Thanks, Direct Devil. What his professional body also said was that the engineer's supervision was adequate despite all the issues, despite not doing a loading for the structure as admitted in the Disciplinary Hearing - there are solicitors notes from this hearing, allowing the client to sign a contract that was not nearly detailed enough, not sending in documentation to HSA as required, providing certificates of compliance when it was clearly visible the building wasn't in compliance. Yet, they deemed his supervision adequate as it was periodic visits - 10 visits - even though he was both the designer and assigned certifier, and supervisor, and tender person for the builder on this project, though they did find he lacked due diligence and care in his work, did not have enough professional knowledge etc. I am just wondering how they can see he provided adequate supervision - he was the Lead Consultant - and everything went wrong! Maybe they were just trying to prevent it looking so bad, they would have to strike off the engineer indefinitely, or maybe they were afraid of being sued themselves for having such an incompetent and negligent engineer on their register - it's very strange. I think he should be struck off indefinitely! Perhaps there will be a journalist hanging around in Court on the day the Court case concludes, who will report on how engineers like this can get off with a wrap of the knuckles, and that there are no real consequences, and self-regulation does not work for the industry. That would be justice!