×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Engineers vs Lawyers
10

Engineers vs Lawyers

RE: Engineers vs Lawyers

That's amusing, but lawyers are there to resolve contract disputes between engineers as well

TTFN

RE: Engineers vs Lawyers

But why would engineers need contracts in the first place if it wasn't for lawyers?

RE: Engineers vs Lawyers

The root of the problem is that we have professional legislators. They're just doing their jobs...legislating & legislating & legislating.... You never hear about them "unlegislating"

Good for the lawyers, bad for the rest of us.

RE: Engineers vs Lawyers

Contracts are about understanding what each party thinks they're getting or paying for.  

There are contracts written in Sumerian from thousands of years ago, well before the advent of lawyers.

If you've never had a dispute, the count your blessings.  The rest of us live in world populated by Jeff Skillings and Ken Lays.  

TTFN

RE: Engineers vs Lawyers

I tend to agree with IRStuff, if you work without a contract then sooner of later it will end in tears!

Having qualifications in both law and engineering my two penneth worth is this; not all lawyers are bad, they can help to solve legitimate disputes and if you have a good lawyer in your corner you will be happy. Some lawyers approach the law in a different way, trying to manipulate the meaning of statutes to bring a case where there is none. Long after the dust has settled the only winner is the person who generated the hope that a plaintiff could win...

Regarding the adversarial process; it has its advantages but only if not abused. The french use the inquisitorial process to great effect but some say that this can be open to bias. Ultimately a judge or jury decide the outcome, juries are notoriously fickle but are supposed to represent the public at large!

Regards, HM.

No more things should be presumed to exist than are absolutely necessary - William of Occam

RE: Engineers vs Lawyers

2
(OP)
While I agree in principle with the adversarial process when it comes to legal issues, this should be tempered with a more global view.  Lawyers should become responsible not only to their clients but to society as a whole, just like engineers.

The US legal system is often seen as a gigantic lottery. A suit is brought in the hopes of getting not only damages and costs but a huge punitive award as well. Since the lawyers take one third or so as their fee cases are often brought as speculative business deals and not only to seek true justice.

Here in Canada the concept of punitive awards and contingency fees are not allowed in our system. Damages for pain and suffering are also rare. Thus we do not get the out of control judgments that occur in the US.

I’m not sure that I agree with the banning of contingency fees. This will often deny justice those who cannot afford the fee up front. I do agree with not having punitive damages payable to the individual, I would like to see the concept where punitive damages are payable to the Crown, like a fine.

There is a web site dedicated to the abuses of the legal system. It’s named the Stella Award after the woman who sued for spilling hot coffee on herself. You can subscribe to a newsletter of outrageous abuses of the legal system at http://www.stellaawards.com


Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion
www.kitsonengineering.com

RE: Engineers vs Lawyers

Rick:
My understanding of the case was that the punative damages were so high was because of the arrogance and indifference shown by the people representing the coffee supplier... What would you accept to have your vulnerable parts seriously scalded?

Another consideration is that this type of case gets hyped by those pointing out flaws... but, with law, most cases are far from this... it is not representative.

To arrive at a happy balance there are situations like this 'golden' one as well as ones where the person is victimized...at opposite ends of the spectrum!

RE: Engineers vs Lawyers

I have dealt with MANY lawyers in my consultant/forensic work, and am pleased to report that the expected 3% are NOT NICE. Lawyers are the preservers of the language, and I thank them for that.

I believe that 3% of the engineers and land surveyors are also NOT NICE. Some may call tham crooks. I doubt that the amount varies much in any activity.

I am retired now and very pleased that I have not been sued in over 35 years of consultant work. Bragging? Definitely.
You really do have to be careful and fast on your feet.

RE: Engineers vs Lawyers

(OP)
Dik

Why should Stella personally profit because of the arrogance of the coffee supplier?

That is what punitive damages really are. They are not as much a punishment for the wrong doers but windfall profits for people who spill coffee in their laps.

Yes she was hurt and I can image how painful the scalds would be. However coffee is supposed to be hot and we all let it cool down before drinking.  If the coffee was excessively hot then I can see how the supplier may be partially responsible for the damages. The actual damages, not a penalty that enriches the hurt individual.

You could probably find someone who would let you pour almost boiling water on his or her private parts for $5,000,000.  If punitive damages accrue to the victim then that is in effect what is happening.

What about people, who in spite of knowing the dangers of tobacco continue to use these products and then sue the tobacco companies for billions. Should they be enriched because they lacked the willpower to quit smoking?

Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion
www.kitsonengineering.com

RE: Engineers vs Lawyers

It is all coming back to people knowing when they have had a genuine accident or a negligent accident.

For example, doing a Stella and spilling hot coffee on yourself, through your own actions is no-ones elses fault. You knew the coffee was hot, but you still accidentally spilled it on yourself. The company that you bought the coffee from did not prompt you to do that.

If the waiter spills the coffee on you, then it is his fault, as you did not cause the accident, it was his negligence.

I cannot for the life of me see how a coffee supplier could have any form of input into events related to accidental spillage of their product. (Please note that coffee is best made with boiling water or near boiling water, ie water that is 175 - 212 deg. F, we add milk to cool it!).

This is what really gets up my nose, people that do not take responsibility for their own actions and the lawyers that urge them on. I have a friend that is a lawyer, he is an exception as he does not chase money, he will not pursue an accident/illness/stupidity if he believes that the client could have been more responsible for their own actions.

Has anyone read the ethics that lawyers operate under? I would be interested to make a comparison with our own ethics.

Where intelligence should be applied stupidity rules!


regards
sc

RE: Engineers vs Lawyers

Have just found what I asked for at the Law Institue of Victoria (Australia).

Professional Ethics

A legal practitioners professional duties fall under three main headings. These are : the duty to the law, the duty to the court, and the duty to the client. The legal practitioner is closely associated with, and is part of the administration of the law. The legal practitioner should always uphold the law and this obligation is paramount.

The general principles of professional conduct are further outlined in Section 64 of the Legal Practice Act 1996. The Legal Practice Act 1996 identifies the following general principles of professional conduct :


In the service of a client to act honestly and fairly in the clients best interests.

Not to engage in, or assist, conduct that is calculated to defeat the ends of justice or is otherwise in breach of the law.

To act with all due skill and diligence.

To act with reasonable promptness.

To maintain a clients confidences.

To avoid conflicts of interest.

Refrain from charging excessive legal costs.

Act with honesty and candour in all dealings with courts and tribunals and otherwise discharge all duties owed to courts and tribunal.

Observe any undertaking given to a court or tribunal, the Legal Ombudsman, the Legal Practice Board, a Recognised Professional Association or another practitioner.

Act with honesty, fairness and courtesy in all dealings with other practitioners and firms in a manner conducive to advancing the public interest.

Conduct all dealings with other members of the community and the affairs of clients that effect the interests of others with honesty, fairness and courtesy in a manner conducive to advancing the public interest.


For comparison sake I have also included the Engineering Ethics link for Australia:

http://www.ieaust.org.au/about_us/documents.html


regards

sc

RE: Engineers vs Lawyers

The reason that Stella's case was successful was almost nothing to do with her contributory negligence but to do with the fact that the defence were able to prove not only that McD coffee was x degrees hotter than the competition but also that several other people had been scalded by McD coffee in the course of reasonably foreseeable activities.

Negligence arises when one person owes to another a duty of care and breaches that duty, and reasonably foreseeable harm arises as a result of that breach.

The cute part is that the jury awarded her the value of one day of coffee sales...mind you even that award was reduced during appeals. The annoying thing about the case is that it seems that McD could not rely on the fact that people should have (some) common sense. Plus the fact that it was portrayed as a lone individual harmed by 'big-business'.

No more things should be presumed to exist than are absolutely necessary - William of Occam

RE: Engineers vs Lawyers

Rick
Punative damages are just that... punative... and, made worse by the arrogance of those testifying.  I have a general concept that 'contrition isn't necessarily good for the soul'... but, there are the odd exceptions...

We might want the courts to change the name to 'Unjust Reward Damages' or something... I don't think it would fly...

If I am destitute, then a levy of $10 may hurt... What would it take to punish someone like Bill Gates.  The keyword is 'punative'!

and, yes... they could be windfall profits.

RE: Engineers vs Lawyers

No it ain't. the word is "punitive".

RE: Engineers vs Lawyers

(OP)
I have no problem with the wrong doer being punished. My problem is that the victim is unjustly rewarded often to ridiculous extremes.

The punitive damages simply should not go to the victim, at least not in the magnitude of some of the awards.  If someone drives past my house exceeding the speed limit his fine goes to the crown. Why not have the punitive damages go to the state or federal government? That was the wrong doer is punished and since its often simply a random choice who gets hurt then all would benefit by having taxes lower. A lot of lawsuits are brought not for reasons of seeking justice and restitution of damages caused but for financial gain.

The concept of punitive damages is absent in our system. You can get actual damages and not much else. There also is no award for pain and suffering under the Canadian system. Couple this with nationalized health care and the number and magnitude of personal injury lawsuits is considerably smaller than in the US.

Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion
www.kitsonengineering.com

RE: Engineers vs Lawyers

REgarding the McDonald's case mentioned herein.  McD's was specifically punished with a large punitive damage for institutionalizing extremely dangerous conditions.  As most of you migh be aware, 150°F water exposure for even 10 seconds will result in 3rd degree burns.  McD's policy at that time was a mandatory 185°F coffee temperature.  

The woman in question received 3rd degree burns through sweatpants, because of McD's willful and reckless endangerment of the public.  The aerospace industry spends tons of money to perform safety assessments, to ensure that no exposed surface of any equipment will even reach 150°F.  McD's ignored a known safety issue, since there had been records of many customer complaints.

TTFN

RE: Engineers vs Lawyers

4
IFstuff:

So McD's should stop using hot water for coffee???  McD's offered a product they did not invent.  The product was well understood by the public at large, case history would show that there were billions of cups of coffee sold even well before McD's even started their business.

I dont think McD's should have been held responsible for something that the public created.  Rather, should not have Stella sued the coffee inventor, which would have been defaulted to the public at large since they are responsible for the evolvement of coffee up to the point she was harmed?

She would not have been able to collect $$$$ that way...so go sue McD's was her avenue to gain $$$$$...thus allowing her to win the Stella award for herself....

BobPE

RE: Engineers vs Lawyers

The question is what temperature should the coffee been at?  185°F water will scald you.  If you had set your water heater to that temperature and your child got scalded, Child Services would lock you for child endangerment up in a heartbeat.

McD's sells to the public and in doing so, is obligated to ensure that the product is SAFE.  I don't and have never seen ANY groundswell of public sentiment demanding that their coffee be scalding hot.

TTFN

RE: Engineers vs Lawyers

Particularly in light of the fact that Starbuck's has rules and procedures to ensure that their coffee is nowhere near scalding temperature.

TTFN

RE: Engineers vs Lawyers

Couldn't someone drown in that cup of coffee as well?  Isn't that unsafe?  Should McD's be held responsible if a narcoleptic fell asleep, landed in their cup of coffee and drowned?  I agree that if the coffee was too hot, according to existing laws or public safety standards, then they are negligent (even if noone got hurt).  However, don't we have at least a small amount of responsibility for ourselves?  Do we really want the government to regulate everything?

RE: Engineers vs Lawyers

Is there a principle in the Stella case of who can be expected to understand hazards and risks?

I mean, members of the public do not go about their daily lives performing risk assessments on every activity they undertake. We have no choice but to trust that someone else does that on our bahalf.

Why would Stella have known that 185 degree coffee would badly scald her? She would have known that the coffee was hot and it would hurt if she spilled it, but is it her role to minimise the risk and ensure the temperature is a safer 150 or whatever? I've never known the temperature of a black coffee I might order. Never knew there was an issue, but apparently there is.

However, the business proprietor is surely obligated by law to assess risks and minimise them. They were in a position to do that, Stella wasn't.

Just like food safety - the customer isn't the one who ensures the pork roll is free of salmonella - the business poprierator has that duty.

Cheers,
John.

RE: Engineers vs Lawyers

Punitive damages are awarded by the jury, not the lawyer.  

Obviously, the jury agreed that the practices used by McD's fell way beyond a simple accident and that McD's deliberately created a ticking time bomb waiting to explode.  Since the standard for punitive damages is usually treble actual damages, the jury thought that McD's deserved less than that break that day.

TTFN

RE: Engineers vs Lawyers

I don't think there is public upswell for coffee temperatures...its rather a public preception...maybe Mc'ds can learn from Starbucks...I think Starbucks already learned from McD's however, they post the warning that "caution, contents hot" on the cup.  That warning was all that I believe McD's had to do in response to that case....All that time, money, and effort to warn the public of something they should know.  It comes to common sense and its value when its perceived that it is a right of industry to teach common sense, not the individual to have common sense.

I think the scald threshold for skin and hot water is in the neighborhood of 120 degrees F.   Now that would make a horrible cup of coffee...but a safe one....Should coffee be requlated out of existance because it is a hazardous material?  If we prescribbe to Stella's case...by all means...coffee is downright dangerous and Stella should be looked at as a hero for alerting all us coffee drinkers to the dangers that coffee poses....BUt didn't we all already know that?

I don't think the lawyer nor Stella would have sued a Mom and Pop coffee store, it was the alure of Mc'D's that caused the suit....IT was a lottery lawsuit, and stella had the winning ticket....oppps i mean lawyer...

I think the only defense Mc'D's needed is.....coffee is hot...dah....

BobPE

RE: Engineers vs Lawyers

(OP)
An MSDS for a cup of coffee?

Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion
www.kitsonengineering.com

RE: Engineers vs Lawyers

The facts of the case were that Starbucks and other coffee vendors that had procedures for controlling coffee temperatures limited their temperatures to less than 165°F, whil McD's required a mandatory 185°F on their urns.  That  20° difference makes a huge difference between an instant 3rd degree burn and a simply annoying mishap.  At 165°F, given the thermal mass of your clothing, it would be simply a hot and messy annoyance. You'd need to keep the liquid in contact with your skin for 10 seconds before a serious burn would develop.

At 185°F, you'd instantly get a 3rd degree burn.

The devil is in the details and McD's simply did not follow prudent procedures.

As for MSDS, while coffee might be considered a hazardous material in of itself, the MSDS structure does not account for temperature as a hazardous condition, as there are already other rules that cover that aspect, e.g., you don't need MSDS for stove.

TTFN

RE: Engineers vs Lawyers

the thermal mass of clothing would be overcome by the flow rate of the coffee, allowing below 165 degree F coffee to just as much damage, given the standard 12 oz cup.  So this cannot be the problem....since I do not think volume of coffee was involved in the suit....so we are back to my question...MSDS coffee?  RDK has a great idea...the lawyers are profitting off the deal,, why not us engineers....we should outright demand MSDS sheets in our state or country governments and only engineers should be allowed to issue the permits based on each independent supplier...they should be checked daily a by a PE to insure compliance...or maybe shift to shift, just to make sure no one exceeds the MSDS info....I think PE's should write an ANSI spec for the coffee makers and train operators....the cups and lids should be signed off by a PE and the delivery system to the customer also signed off to limit liability to the supplier and protect the consumer....

You can see where I am going...EVERYONE would think this is utterly stupid....Should we heed the verdict of Stella's case and step in to protect the public?  NO....because Stella's case is a joke and is meant to be funny....but someone did get hurt....McDonalds did....

I am just sparring with you IRSTUFF....please dont take me the wrong way, its just nice to argue two points of view....because I think the outcome will serve us all in how we think....

BobPE

RE: Engineers vs Lawyers

At 165°F, it takes 10 seconds to produce a 3rd degree burn, while at 185°F, it takes less than 1 second.  Given a choice, would you allow me to arbitrarily pick a temperature of coffee to spill on you?

An unsafe product is still an unsafe product.  At the end of the day, you as a PE must have performed your due diligence on any of your products to ensure that you took adequate step to ensure the safety of your products.  Ford took a similar beating over the gas tanks and the uproar over the alleged cost-benefit analysis pointing to leaving the design alone and settling wrongful death suits.  

In the aerospace industry, this is almost a mandatory requirement for any product that is to be fielded, both FMECAs and Safety assessments are performed and customer reviewed to ensure the safety of the end-user to a reasonable expectation.  

Given that there was zero customer requirement for 185°F coffee and that 165°F is more than adequate and with some margin of safety, there was no reason for McD's to arbitrarily mandate such conditions.

TTFN

RE: Engineers vs Lawyers

so let me get this right....Stella is required to get her clothes off, in a car, in under ten seconds...then the lawsuit is frivilous???  

You seemed to answer the argument in your last post...."reasonable expectation."  Is it reasonable to assume coffee, by defination, is hot...hot is 120, hot is 165, hot is 185, hot is 200 degrees.....yes....I do not see thermomemeters in coffee cups, except for maybe those of lawyers interested in a bonus.....LOL  I don't think Stella knew the exact temperature of her coffee, that was one of the problems in her case....She didn't have a thermomemeter handy...she most likely does now...I wish her well, protecting all of us out there in the world...one cup of coffee at a time...LOL

BobPE

RE: Engineers vs Lawyers

Reasonable expectation can be quickly determined, particularly in the case of McD's.  They recently introduced a line of expensive salads, which they most definitely used focus groups to determine the desireability of this new product.  

Likewise, simply asking 2000 or so coffee drinkers whether they were willing to get scalded to get hot coffee would have gotten them answer.  

I suspect that the jury saw the lack of due diligence on the part of McD's as a corporate arrogance akin to Ford's decision to allow people to die in rear-end collisions because it was cheaper, and punished McD's accordingly.

TTFN

RE: Engineers vs Lawyers

IRstuff....I seem to recall Chevy killing customers with their gas tanks in their full size pickups, well after Ford fixed their design flaws......this occured on models well into the 80's....I think gas tank design is a little different that coffee sice all of the process is our of the consumers control....Coffee is not spilled on customers by McD's but rather by the customer themselves....

I think thats a big difference....

BobPE

RE: Engineers vs Lawyers

dunno, since when did Ford or Chevy start rear-ending their customers to blow up their fuel tanks?

The gas tank design, like the temperature of the dispensed coffee, is completely under the control of the supplier.

Rear-end collisions and spillage are obvious consequences of product usage.  These events are hardly unforeseeable.  Any safety engineer worth a darn would so indicate and would recommend steps to mitigate the issue.  

If you had designed an overpass that could not sustain a collision from a 18-wheeler, who would get the blame?

TTFN

RE: Engineers vs Lawyers

What is the user is wearing shorts?  Wouldn't they get burned instantly then?

RE: Engineers vs Lawyers

McDs gets sued for providing coffee to a customer who subsequently burns themselves.  Why not the manufacturer of the coffee maker?  How many of us have accidently burned ourselves using the stove or making a pot of coffee.  Do we go out and sue the manufacturer of either the equipment or the product?  Eventually the customer has to be responsible for their own actions.  I am quite sure that most of the users of these forums are familiar with the labelling on some food products such as remove contents from package before heating or eating.  People can still mess that up!  When I was in college we had a fire alarm at some awful hour because someone decided to bake a pizza without first removing it from the box.

My racing gear is labelled stating that the equipment essentially has no capability to protect me from harm and that I assume all risk.  That I do each time I go out on the track.  I also entail risk each time I drive on the street or handle a cup of coffee.

Lawyers make their living from conflict.  Good ones solve conflicts, bad ones instigate them so that they can then "solve" them.  Anyone remember the final scene in "The Devil's Advocate"?  Al Pacino's character is asked (approximate) "...why law...?"   Answer (not exact to script): "Because we are everywhere.  Lawyers have the ultimate backstage pass."

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"   -- Murphy's Laws

RE: Engineers vs Lawyers

Thanks IRStuff - that is an interesting other side of the story that I hadn't heard before.  

RE: Engineers vs Lawyers

It's all very nice and convenient to blame lawyers, but the bottom line is that McD's had as good and certainly more lawyers.  

At the end of the day, McD's was unable to convince a jury that the lady was at fault for being silly enough to buy too hot coffee from McD's.  

Note the following:

>  The woman never got the full award, since the judge reduced the punitive damages to 2.4 times actual.
>  McD's admitted that the coffee was undrinkable as dispensed as it would burn one's mouth as well.
>  McD's had lowered the coffee temperature to 158°F after
the trial started with zero detriment to sales.

see:
http://www.centerjd.org/free/mythbusters-free/MB_mcdonalds.htm

if you haven't hit ad nauseum yet

TTFN

RE: Engineers vs Lawyers

Rick:

Given that punative damages are a fact of law, who would you reward?  the Government (likely an undeserving bunch)? a charity (which one(s) and how much, and how determined)? a social agency (same problem)?  Coffee Anonamous?  I think the victim is the first that comes to mind!

It also sets a business up as an example of what one should not do!  Do you doubt that lawyers for other firms haven't learned from this? as well as the other firms lawyers?

RE: Engineers vs Lawyers

(OP)
I would treat punitive damages as a fine with the proceeds going to the Crown.

That way we all benefit in the form of lower taxes or more services while at the same time punishing the guilty. We all pay for the damages anyway in the form of higher costs or higher insurance costs.

The financial incentive for the lawyer to make more money by the awarding of more damages should be removed.

Engineers are not allowed to profit based on their opinions, professional opinions are and should be neutral of all financial incentives.

Why not put lawyers in the same position, eliminate contingency fees and large windfall profits for getting large punitive damages awarded?

Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion
www.kitsonengineering.com

RE: Engineers vs Lawyers

Rick... it would be fine if the matter were criminal... but, you have to realize that this is a civil matter.  The crown or prez(maybe) did not lay the charges... they are out of the picture.  The defendant cannot be 'fined', but he may be subject to court costs!  

I was quite surprised (Simpson) that you could be aquitted by a criminal court and 'roped' for the same offence as a civil matter...

There is an advantage to contingency fees... it allows people that could not normally afford a lawyer to have one (and a good one at that).  There is likely a 'loose' correlation between quality of lawyer and success.  By not having contingency fees, some are not getting justice.

RE: Engineers vs Lawyers

(OP)
Dik

Can you explain why the plaintive should profit from the case?

That’s exactly what punitive damages are, windfall profits to the plaintive with one third to the lawyers.

If the intent were to punish the defendant than the punishment would remain the same, it would just remove the incentive for frivolous lawsuits.

And yes I believe that the Stella case was frivolous.  Everyone knows coffee is hot. Everyone knows that if you spill hot liquids on your groin it will hurt. Everyone knows that opening a coffee cup held between your knees will increase the chances of it spilling.  What happened to common sense and responsibility for one’s own actions? Her responsibility for the injury was more than the 20% assessed. IMHO it is more like 99.9%, she initiated the actions that caused the injury.

To be awarded $5 million just because the defendants were less sympathetic than the poor old grandmother with coffee burns was a miscarriage of justice.  To be awarded $5million because the jury thinks you can afford it is a miscarriage of justice, what would have happened if she had bought the coffee at some mom and pop corner store? (I know that the award was reduced on appeal and the final disposition of the case was negotiated and is a sealed matter, the jury DID award $5million)

How about the lawsuits now being brought by obese people against snack food makers. Should the snack food makers be held responsible because people choose to eat their product in large quantities and fail to get sufficient exercise? I predict sooner or later a jury will award some overweight person many millions on this issue.

If the money goes to the Crown then no individual profits from the action. If punitive damages are punishment they are no different than a fine and should be treated as such.

As an engineer we should take a position based on what we professionally believe to be the correct one with no regard for who is paying the bills and no financial interest in the outcome. (Yes I know that is the ideal and not always the reality, but at least we always pay lip service to this ideal.)  Lawyers on the other hand will take the position that pays the best.

There IS something to be said for an advocacy system in law. It’s just when the dollar amounts get so large that they distort the basic concepts of justice and fairness that should be the foundation of the system.

The Simpson case was the difference between criminal and civil courts. OJ was found not guilty because one jury found that there was reasonable doubt that he committed the crime. A second jury found that on the balance of probabilities he was guilty of causing the wrongful death of two people. I won’t comment on the differences in the racial and social economic make-ups of the two juries other than to say that I believe that it had something to do with the results.

The differences are in the standards of proof are reasonable. In a criminal court one can be denied one’s liberty and freedom (and even life in those places that still allow the state to kill criminals.) In a civil court all that is at stake is money.

As to contingency fees, I agree that they may allow justice for those who cannot afford it but they should be capped at actual costs (normal hourly rates plus disbursements plus a risk factor) instead of being unlimited. Lawyers would then only invest in cases where there was some real possibility of being successful i.e. the case had some merit. Hourly rates can be demonstrated by what paying clients actually pay for that lawyer’s services, much like some government agencies do for some engineering contracts.

Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion
www.kitsonengineering.com

RE: Engineers vs Lawyers

Okay, I'll jump in.  Everybody has probably heard about the porch collaspe in Lincoln Park (Chicago).  City just filed suit against building owners for building the porch without proper permits.  Will the city win any money; probably not, but by making it a matter of public record, the city attorneys have idemnified the city against legal action and strenghtened the existing building codes.  A good thing.  Also Kraft foods has announced a new initiative to produce healthier foods and smaller portions.  This was probably induced by the "frivilous" suits filed against fast food joints, but we all may end up better off.  So there are certainly "good" lawyers and "bad" lawyers, but in the big picture, the "legal system" usually produces the most benefit for the most people.

Blacksmith

RE: Engineers vs Lawyers

First, I would like to say that I have enjoyed this thread very much.  Your (collective) superior intellect is something to be valued.

Now, my (offtopic) input:

Also Kraft foods has announced a new initiative to produce healthier foods and smaller portions.  This was probably induced by the "frivilous" suits filed against fast food joints, but we all may end up better off.

Kraft makes this seem like making portions smaller is some kind of benefit to society, almost as if Kraft is taking the high road in social stewardship with this new initiative.

I challenge you all to monitor the costs of these new "smaller portioned" foods.  I am skeptical that the prices will lower proportionately.  I am also skeptical that the obesity rate in the US will lower a fraction of a percent because of the initiative.

Kraft hasn't done ANYONE a favor.  They are simply making more profit by selling you less and charging the same amount.  Then they get away with it by spinning it in a positive manner in the media.

Unethical, to say the least.

RE: Engineers vs Lawyers

The Blacksmith:

"Will the city win any money; probably not, but by making it a matter of public record, the city attorneys have idemnified the city against legal action and strenghtened the existing building codes"

I wouldn't hold my breath on Chicago being indemnified... that they were on site and were aware that work was ongoing may be sufficient...

RE: Engineers vs Lawyers

Why should we assume that the wooden porch structure (in Chicago) should support over 150 people?  (That number was reported on several different news sources / channels)

RE: Engineers vs Lawyers

(OP)
Kraft Foods
Are they responding to the lawsuits or threat thereof or to consumer demand?
Will the prices drop with the smaller portions? Don’t know. By enough to pay for the lawsuits?

Who benefits? I don’t know, but I believe that the lawsuits were not the way to force change, simple consumer demand would do that for any consumer oriented company. Kraft is a consumer oriented company.

What happened to personal responsibility for overeating?

Chicago balcony collapse

City suing for lack of building permits? Sounds like backwards logic if the lawsuit is simply to protect the city. Can they not simply charge the builder/developer with the code/permit violation?  The city would say no record of building code and the developer would have as a defense the opportunity to produce the permit or some record of payment for a permit.  In Manitoba that would not have to happen because the municipality has immunity from legal action for issuing a permit in error.

Who is to blame for the disaster? I don’t know. I do believe that the forensic evidence will show if the deck was constructed to code or not or if it was simply overloaded and collapsed under the overload.

Let’s assume that the deck was designed and built to code. Would the engineer who designed the deck be liable because he did not post prominent warnings “DO NOT OVERLOAD THIS DECK WITH 150 PEOPLE OR IT WILL COLASPE AND KILL SOME OF THEM”. Would he have been liable if the deck collapsed with 149 people.

If that’s the case then we will have to plaster the entire USA with warning labels. There will be so many of them out there that they will lose all impact and the true hazards will get missed. Thankfully here in Canada we do not have the runaway legal system that you enjoy in the US.

One would think that at least one of these 150 people should have had the common sense to realize that that was too many for a deck.

With these assumptions I see a parallel to the Stella case. McD’s did not post a warning that hot coffee could hurt if poured on your groin so they were liable. Any engineer here want to assume liability for their designs when they get overloaded past the code design loads?

Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion
www.kitsonengineering.com

RE: Engineers vs Lawyers

50 people, I understand, else the fatalities may have been greater...

Most balconies are designed for a live load between 40 and 100 psf.  At 40psf, 160 lb people on a 2' grid... at 100psf, 200 lb people on a 1'5 grid... both, real cozy!

Good chance the balcony was not correctly designed/constructed!

RE: Engineers vs Lawyers

This point may have been brought up before, but do any of you hesitate to give information or advice on this forum for the fear of liability?  I know that I sometimes relent a response because I fear that I do not understand the situation at hand well enough to give a safe answer.

Well, most of the time I hesitate to answer because I frankly have no concept of what is being discussed.

(Just kidding, of course!)

RE: Engineers vs Lawyers

(OP)
The issue of liability for postings has come up before. Read the site policies  and FAQ’s and it’s clear that the use of information posted here is the responsibility of the user and not the poster.

You can also protect yourself further by refraining from giving specific advise like use such and such a size of beam, to based on your description a xxx beam should be sufficient but contact a local engineer to be sure. Language like suggest, would look at, consider etc will also limit your liability.

Besides, if I was to be sued it would have to be in a Canadian court and I would simply schedule the trial for January when it’s –40 here.  Y’all don’t forget your long underwear.

Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion
www.kitsonengineering.com

RE: Engineers vs Lawyers

There were at least 150 people on the porch at the time of the collapse, 13 dead & 50+ injured enough to go the hospital.  I don't think that any reasonable person would assume that the structure was designed to hold that many people!!!  To support this claim, some of the party goers where interviewed and said that they didn't feel comfortable with the amount of people on the porch so they got off.  We are not talking about enigneers here, these were law school students, business majors, etc..

It seems pretty clear that these "victims" willfully disregarded common sense, and purposefully caused this accident.  If I got 10,000 of my closest friends together and piled onto that porch, is it really the building owner, porch builder, city of chicago, etc. fault that it broke?  Obviously there has to be some responsiblity for providing a safe structure, but let's think about this for a second.  150 people on a wooden structure that is 3 stories tall, that was designed for residental use only?????  I'm an electrical eningeer, but I wouldn't expect it to hold (and us EE's are not known for our mechanical abilities ).

Are we saying that the American public is SOOOOOOOO stupid, that they can't be reasonably expected to think that is not a good idea?  Let's just call it what it is, a terrible accident caused by careless people, that ended too many lives!!!!

RE: Engineers vs Lawyers

The Washington Post noted that there were approximately 50 people on the upper level... The following is from the Chicago Tribune which noted that there were approximately 114 people on all three levels.  Further in the Tribune article, it implies that the design load was 100 psf; not having a copy of Chicago's code, I can't confirm it... From experience, it is almost impossible to get 100 psf... note my 200 lb people on a 1'5" grid...

Building owner Philip J. Pappas, and his porch contractor, George Koutroumbis, illegally erected a three-story porch using 2-by-8-inch floor joists rather than the sturdier 2-by-10-inch joists required by city code, according to the suit filed in Cook County Housing Court.  If properly designed, the size has little to do with it... I've also captured a bunch of info/discussion from the SEAOC which I'll sift through this evening...
    
The suit also alleged that the 11-by-21-foot porch was a foot wider than the maximum allowed under the code and exceeded a limit of 150 square feet per floor by more than 50 percent.

"I believe that the cause of these deaths was the fact that the porch was constructed in violation of the law, "Corporation Counsel Mara Georges said.


Everyone, have a really great and safe 4th of July...

RE: Engineers vs Lawyers

Odd question:

If one is both a PE and a licensed lawyer, how does one resolve the conflicts between ones responsibilities as a PE (society first), and a lawyer (client's advocate)?

After all, a PE is a PE 24/7

Cheers

Greg Locock

RE: Engineers vs Lawyers

Greg, this should stir up the pot...:

As a non-lawyer and a practicing engineer, this should be easy:

Are society's best interests served by having a judicial system?  Having answered that, Are not society's best interests served by a specialist in the judicial system?

I don't see a conflict unless you consider the work being done by engineers as being more critical than that of the judicial system.

RE: Engineers vs Lawyers

Interesting reading in all of these posts and the different opinions of lawyers and the law in general. The lawyer who represented Stella is an "ambulance chaser" and probably can't spell "ethics".

I wonder when some fool will "accidently" discharge a weapon, kill someone, and try to go after punitive damages from Smith and Wesson.

Can you equate the two, yes. Whether it be a gun or a hot cup of coffee you have in your hand, be careful how you handle either and have the guts to admit to your own stupidity and live with the consequences.

How far does this type of nonsense go. How about a driver who causes mayhem on the freeway by spilling coffee. Does the auto manufacturer find himself in court for providing a cup holder thus inviting the idiot to have the occational sip of hot coffee while doing 70 mph.

Don't laugh, most professionals find themselves at the mercy of the courts not because of their actions, but another's carelessness, neglect or sheer stupidity.

Lawyers, juries, Heaven help us all. When did any responsible professional last see a jury which contained even one of his/her "peers".  That of course would be biased.

RE: Engineers vs Lawyers

Then again, how many of us don't go out of our way to avoid jury duty?

Additionally, many self-employed professionals don't get paid for jury duty, which is an econmic hardship, which gets you off the jury.

Finally, the court clerk has figured all this out by now and doesn't bother wasting the court's time selecting professionals for questioning.  Instead, civil servants and teachers and retired people get picked first.

TTFN

RE: Engineers vs Lawyers

I won't get down on retired people, almost there myself, but civil servants, teachers ?

I say again, Heaven help us all !

RE: Engineers vs Lawyers

IRstuff, I have only been called to serve on one jury in 25 years of eligibility.  I went through the selection process and ended up on a wrongful death civil suit.  I seem to recall that about a third of that jury was self-employed.  Prior to testimony, civic pride was evident among most all of the jurors.

Now, after 10 days I wanted to choke the judge for allowing the circus to go on for as long as it had.  When it was all over, the plaintiff's attorneys filed appeals which effectively rendered our service valueless.  That was about 10 years ago.  Will I go again if called?  Absolutely!

I don't remember the source of the quote, but there is a saying that goes something like "People don't get the government they want, they get the government they deserve".  I have been blessed to have been born in a wonderful country.  A country made possible by the blood, sweat, and sacrifices of many before me.  The very least I can do is try to help maintain the liberties handed to me on a silver platter.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources