The question of what the scope of the engineer's duties are, normally come into play whenever an engineered component breaks down. One prominent component to this question is whether an engineer's duties stretch over and above a contractual liability with its employer.
In Strijdom Park Extension 6 (Pty) Ltd v Abcon (Pty) Ltd this issue was raised and clarified via the Supreme Court of Appeal.
Background
In this particular case the engineer was being employed by Strijdom Park Extension 6 (Pty) Ltd ("the employer") to design a steel reinforced concrete slab isolating the ground floor from the basement of a factory which was set up by Abcon (Pty) Ltd ("the contractor"). The concrete slab broke two years after occupation of the factory was taken.
The employer implemented a claim for damages to the contractor and the engineer, alleging they had breached their particular agreements with the company. The claim against the engineer was settled, however the claim against the contractor was heard on appeal.
The parties were convinced that the collapse must-have occurred throughout the casting of the slab when the bare concrete was poured over and inside the network of reinforcing steel.
The dilemma which had to be decided upon appeal was, to begin with, whether or not the breakdown of the slab was at a minimum partly as a result of a faulty architectural design and, secondly, whether or not the engineer had a obligation to the contractor.
The Court accounted for the subsequent undeniable facts: * the catastrophe was due to the collapse of the upper of two criss-cross mats of steel bars that were encased inside the concrete to strengthen it; * the cave in had been a end result thereof that numerous 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 limited to one bar of the mat sitting on the centre of the horizontal piece of everyone of such stools; * the stools were not fastened; and * the stool collapse took place during the casting of the slab.
The Contractor's Debate
The Contractor, firstly, took the position that it hadn't been responsible for the destruction since it had created the concrete slab in accordance with the engineer's design, which was purportedly defective.
Secondly, the contractor relied on the fact that the engineer had authorised the way the reinforcement was set up.
In conclusion, the contractor pointed out that the engineer's design did not reveal that there had to be two bars of the top mat per stool, nor that the stools had to be fastened.
The contractor maintained that it failed to spot the collapse of the upper mat, nor did it appreciate that the stools hadn't been tied up. It is apparent from the contractor's evidence that he left every pertinent choice related to the assembly of the strengthening to the engineer and also the steel contractor.
The Employer's Argument
The business asserted that: * It was the job of the contractor to assemble the support mats as well as maintain same in the proper position.
* Correct development practice required that, whenever you can, two bars of the top mat ought to 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 and parcel of proper engineering procedure and solely the contractor's responsibility.
* The contractor really should have recognized the failure during the pouring procedure and really should have stopped the task so that they can seek advice from the engineer.
* If the contractor had seen its responsibilities as set out previously, the failure would not have occured.
The Court's Approach
The Court agreed with the employer's position.
There was clearly no facts corroborating the allegation that the engineer's design was faulty. Even though the engineer had authorised the steel structure on location, he didn't have a responsibility to supervise the work of the contractor. It was the contractor's decision how it carried out the development job and it can't switch the blame to the engineer in the situation where it did not carry out its work in a proper and workmanlike manner. It had also been the contractor's obligation to ensure the construction of a design is free of defects.
Inside the Court's viewpoint, it had been acceptable of the engineer to anticipate that the contractor would guarantee proper construction of the reinforcement mat by observing any displacement and taking suitable action when it occurred.
The Court additionally replied that the engineer had simply a contractual responsibility to the client and never to the contractor. The engineer didn't actually have a obligation to intervene if the contractor seem to be going wrong (unless it was obvious to the engineer that the contractor did not know his business and was going to get it wrong). Such an obligation to get involved would only occur if the contractor appear set on an remarkable act of carelessness.
The Court consequently held that the slab had failed because the contractor did not execute the construction in a correct and workmanlike fashion.
Decision
* An engineer's duties are not extended past what is arranged as part of his contract 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 accountable for another party's contractual infringement.
In Strijdom Park Extension 6 (Pty) Ltd v Abcon (Pty) Ltd this issue was raised and clarified via the Supreme Court of Appeal.
Background
In this particular case the engineer was being employed by Strijdom Park Extension 6 (Pty) Ltd ("the employer") to design a steel reinforced concrete slab isolating the ground floor from the basement of a factory which was set up by Abcon (Pty) Ltd ("the contractor"). The concrete slab broke two years after occupation of the factory was taken.
The employer implemented a claim for damages to the contractor and the engineer, alleging they had breached their particular agreements with the company. The claim against the engineer was settled, however the claim against the contractor was heard on appeal.
The parties were convinced that the collapse must-have occurred throughout the casting of the slab when the bare concrete was poured over and inside the network of reinforcing steel.
The dilemma which had to be decided upon appeal was, to begin with, whether or not the breakdown of the slab was at a minimum partly as a result of a faulty architectural design and, secondly, whether or not the engineer had a obligation to the contractor.
The Court accounted for the subsequent undeniable facts: * the catastrophe was due to the collapse of the upper of two criss-cross mats of steel bars that were encased inside the concrete to strengthen it; * the cave in had been a end result thereof that numerous 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 limited to one bar of the mat sitting on the centre of the horizontal piece of everyone of such stools; * the stools were not fastened; and * the stool collapse took place during the casting of the slab.
The Contractor's Debate
The Contractor, firstly, took the position that it hadn't been responsible for the destruction since it had created the concrete slab in accordance with the engineer's design, which was purportedly defective.
Secondly, the contractor relied on the fact that the engineer had authorised the way the reinforcement was set up.
In conclusion, the contractor pointed out that the engineer's design did not reveal that there had to be two bars of the top mat per stool, nor that the stools had to be fastened.
The contractor maintained that it failed to spot the collapse of the upper mat, nor did it appreciate that the stools hadn't been tied up. It is apparent from the contractor's evidence that he left every pertinent choice related to the assembly of the strengthening to the engineer and also the steel contractor.
The Employer's Argument
The business asserted that: * It was the job of the contractor to assemble the support mats as well as maintain same in the proper position.
* Correct development practice required that, whenever you can, two bars of the top mat ought to 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 and parcel of proper engineering procedure and solely the contractor's responsibility.
* The contractor really should have recognized the failure during the pouring procedure and really should have stopped the task so that they can seek advice from the engineer.
* If the contractor had seen its responsibilities as set out previously, the failure would not have occured.
The Court's Approach
The Court agreed with the employer's position.
There was clearly no facts corroborating the allegation that the engineer's design was faulty. Even though the engineer had authorised the steel structure on location, he didn't have a responsibility to supervise the work of the contractor. It was the contractor's decision how it carried out the development job and it can't switch the blame to the engineer in the situation where it did not carry out its work in a proper and workmanlike manner. It had also been the contractor's obligation to ensure the construction of a design is free of defects.
Inside the Court's viewpoint, it had been acceptable of the engineer to anticipate that the contractor would guarantee proper construction of the reinforcement mat by observing any displacement and taking suitable action when it occurred.
The Court additionally replied that the engineer had simply a contractual responsibility to the client and never to the contractor. The engineer didn't actually have a obligation to intervene if the contractor seem to be going wrong (unless it was obvious to the engineer that the contractor did not know his business and was going to get it wrong). Such an obligation to get involved would only occur if the contractor appear set on an remarkable act of carelessness.
The Court consequently held that the slab had failed because the contractor did not execute the construction in a correct and workmanlike fashion.
Decision
* An engineer's duties are not extended past what is arranged as part of his contract 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 accountable for another party's contractual infringement.
About the Author:
Get accurate infomation on engineering and construction law. Let professional construction attorneys advise you on your duties and obligations.
No comments:
Post a Comment