Consulting-Specifying Engineer - September 2007 - (Page 44)

and consent to that reliance, they must adhere to the same standard of care that applies to their other clients. to the contractor, satisfying public policy considerations that someone has to accept responsibility for construction site safety. The distinction standard contr act forms today recognize that engineers do not control the job site. Contractor and subcontractor employees Likely claims from contractor employees are claims for bodily injury or property damage. There is a long history of liability for those whose negligence injures another person regardless of any contractual relationship between the parties. Today’s AIA and EJCDC form contracts recognize that engineers do not control the construction site, and therefore, do not have the means to manage site safety. These form contracts also specifically assign responsibility for site safety between the architect’s contract, that “contained no undertaking by [the architect] to assume any duty of supervision and control with regard to the actual construction of the building” and the contractors’ contracts that “had the duty to protect the workers from the hazards on the construction site” seemed important to the court in Young v. Eastern Engineering & Elevator Company, Inc. 17 The Young court held that “absent an undertaking by an architect, by contract or conduct, of the responsibilities of the supervision of construction and the maintenance of safe conditions on a construction project, an architect is not under a duty to notify workers or employees of the contractor or subcontractors of hazardous conditions on the construction site.” Favorable contract language will not protect engineers from liability for site safety under all circumstances. In Carvalho v. Toll Brothers 18, the owner hired an engineer to provide inspection services during construction. A worker died when a trench collapsed on him. The engineer was aware of the dangerous condition and witnessed the accident. The New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division found that the engineer had a duty to warn workers if the engineer becomes aware of a condition that presents a risk to serious bodily injury to the workers. The New Jersey Supreme Court concluded that “it would be unfair to exonerate [the engineer] from its liability to decedent on the basis of its exculpatory agreement with the [owner]. Their financial arrangements and understanding do not overcome the public policy that imposes a duty of care and ascribes liability to the engineer in these circumstances.”19 The court relied on the “foreseeability of harm” and “consider- Input #225 at csemag.com/quickResponse http://www.federalpacific.com http://www.federalpacific.com http://csemag.com/quickResponse

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Consulting-Specifying Engineer - September 2007

Contents M/E Roundtable Cover Story: Airborne Superbugs Third-Party Liability Back to School Product Spotlight Codes & Standards Professional Practices How To New Products Jobs/Cliassifieds Specifier’s Notebook Pure Power Supplement New Technologies, Same Old Transmission Problems Wireless Battery Recharging Solar Concentration Renewables Tracking System A Mighty Wind The Importance of Load Bank Testing Quality Power for Security Systems

Consulting-Specifying Engineer - September 2007

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.