Responsibility 9

[Calif]

Who bears the responsibility if a structure collaspes? Is it the engineer who designed it with no engineering license or is it the engineer who signs the plans?



The resisant virtues of the structure that we seek depend on their form; it is through their form that they are stable, not because of an awkward accumulation of material. There is nothing more noble and elegant from an intellectual viewpoint than this: to resist through form. Eladio Dieste

 

[MintJulep]

Yep.

 

[Calif]

Yep, what? Who bears the responsibility?

The resisant virtues of the structure that we seek depend on their form; it is through their form that they are stable, not because of an awkward accumulation of material. There is nothing more noble and elegant from an intellectual viewpoint than this: to resist through form. Eladio Dieste

 

[kelowna]

I guess you are in California.

In the States the responsibility is for the engineer who signed and sealed the drawings. He is responsible for any calculation or design work from a non licensed engineer, EIT or similar that makes it into a drawing he or she signs.

That is, of course, if the collapse of the structure is due to a design error. It could also be faulty materials, inadequate construction techniques, abnormal loads, Godzilla attack...

 

[rowingengineer]

The responsibility of a structure collapse is not apportioned by signoff; there are many lines of investigation required before the party (parties) involved are found at fault. It would be very unusual for the engineer to be found to be solely reasonably for the failure of a structure. Then there are two points of conjecture, is this civil law or construction law or something completely different, under the defined policies of many governments, the engineer take reasonability for the design and the apportioned blame is lambed at signing engineer, and some also the design engineer, however, if the case is in civil law and the original engineer is found to be negligent in his duties he can also be found capable. There are a lot more twists and turns than this, thus this is really a question for your local lawyer.

The best advice is not to stuff up in the first place.



An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made in a very narrow field

 

[IRstuff]

The Kansas City Hyatt walkway collapse might be useful reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyatt_Regency_walkway_collapse

In that case, the engineers of record were ultimately responsible not only for the design, but also for the proper construction thereof.

TTFN

FAQ731-376

 

[rbulsara]

As stated before firstly it has to be determined that it was in fact due to a design error and not other factors. While engineer singing off the drawings bears greater responsibility, everyone involved with the project are responsible and liable and can be sued, this includes the pizza delivery person who may have visited the site.

Final outcome depends on which lawyer is more convincing.

Rafiq Bulsara

http://www.srengineersct.com

 

[Ron]

As others have said, first the cause of failure must be determined through competent and thorough investigation. It might not be either engineer...it could be the contractor or subcontractors or a combination of all.

You are asking for a black or white answer to a very gray question.

 

[Calif]

Even if the engineer has no license and is a young engineer and there is no protocol within the firm to check design?

The resisant virtues of the structure that we seek depend on their form; it is through their form that they are stable, not because of an awkward accumulation of material. There is nothing more noble and elegant from an intellectual viewpoint than this: to resist through form. Eladio Dieste

 

[Calif]

Oh, I am not in California but on the east coast. You know, I do not know how it is everywhere else in the USA but engineering practice for small companies seem to just do whatever they want even if their practice is ethical or not. This is just my opinion and people else where may have had different experience than I have but being in a small firm and I mean somewhere between 10 to 25 people. They tend try to get the job, at a low budget, at a small time frame, and rely mostly on computer software to handle all the analysis without a paper backup.

The resisant virtues of the structure that we seek depend on their form; it is through their form that they are stable, not because of an awkward accumulation of material. There is nothing more noble and elegant from an intellectual viewpoint than this: to resist through form. Eladio Dieste

 

[IRstuff]

Wikipedia has a slightly different form of your quote from Eladio Dieste

The resistant virtues of the structure that we make depend on their form; it is through their form that they are stable and not because of an awkward accumulation of materials. There is nothing more noble and elegant from an intellectual viewpoint than this; resistance through form.

Note also the spelling.

TTFN

FAQ731-376

 

[MikeHalloran]

It appears that the peanut butter has already struck the fan blades. ... in which case you should be talking to your lawyer, not some anonymous engineers.




Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA

 

[Ron]

Calif...you have provided very little true information. You have alluded to a small firm that apparently allowed a young, inexperienced engineer to design something and some other engineer has signed/sealed the design.

To answer your original question, without the benefit of appropriate background information, the engineer who signed/sealed the design is responsible. It doesn't matter if the design was done by Santa Claus, if the engineer signed and sealed the design...it's his.

As for small firms or large firms, unethical conduct is not exclusive to either. I have experience in both. Ethical conduct is the responsibility of the individual, not the company. If you choose to be controlled in your ethical conduct by corporate constraints, you would likely do so without those constraints. It is not and should not be an excuse, nor should unethical activity be condoned or promoted by any corporation.

 

[Qshake]

Nice one, Ron.

Regards,
Qshake

Eng-Tips Forums:Real Solutions for Real Problems Really Quick.

 

[Calif]

Ron, there is so much an engineer can have control in a company whether it is small or large. I am just giving you my experience working in this field since 2001 and have worked in big and small companies. There is more likely hood for unethical practice in a very small company compared to a larger one. You may have seen it in large but maybe the larger company can handle the liability. I have worked for small and large companies and in my experience, small companies run greater risk for unethical practice. Why? Money. Small firms are trying to make money and I have had it happen to me twice. Every time I have been to a small company, nobody checks work unless, there is a problem or calculations are requested. I am not saying you are wrong by your experience but these are mine.

The resisant virtues of the structure that we seek depend on their form; it is through their form that they are stable, not because of an awkward accumulation of material. There is nothing more noble and elegant from an intellectual viewpoint than this: to resist through form. Eladio Dieste

 

[Ron]

Calif...I understand your concerns and I don't disagree. In my experience with smaller firms doing things in a "less than desired" manner, I've found that it seems to follow one of two themes....first is ignorance and second is ego.

On the ignorance side, I see small firms led by engineers who actually have little truly diverse experience, but who have an entreprenurial spirit to run a business. They do so, not knowing the steps necessary to develop a quality approach to engineering.

On the ego side, I see small firms led by controlling individuals who have developed a profit picture that has little room for technical competence and quality, but depends on quantity of work.

There is often overlap between the two themes.

In most small firms that I've seen run by individuals who have left larger companies to do their own thing, there is a tendency to carry a technical quality and competence philosophy with them, just getting away from the corporate "machine".

I left a large corporate structure for exactly the reason you noted...there's only so much you can do without being "run over" by the corporate structure. Most larger engineering firms are now run by accountants, attorneys, and engineers who have abdicated their engineering prowess to become strictly managers of an administrative process. Sad but true. Technical competence in such corporations is treated as a commodity that can be replaced at will. It cannot, but they don't understand the long term effect of their decisions on their company or the engineering profession.

It is absurd to think that one can replace 20 years of relevant engineering experience with one or two newbie engineers or even worse, new graduates. Yet to meet the financial model set forth by the accountants, that's exactly what they will do. I've seen it happen. If the senior technical guys don't "toe the line" to match the administrative rules, they get replaced. The sad part is their technical competence doesn't get replaced, just the live body. Who is left to mentor these younger engineers and maintain the continuity of technical competence and process?

There is no answer. It is a path that has evolved in the engineering profession and we simply seem to have to adapt or go our separate ways.

I'll get off my soapbox now.

 

[rbulsara]

Nicely put, Ron!

Rafiq Bulsara

http://www.srengineersct.com

 

[Calif]

Yeah, it is a sticky situation to be stuck in a position like this knowing that you have no power or experience to run a company or change the policy. I remember when I moved from a larger to a smaller (layoff not by decision), that I was back in the same style engineering firm that I did not want to be in. I stayed to get my masters and now that I am finish, I have to make a decision on what to do. I do not like doing engineering this way yet, if something happens, I am yelled at for my mistake. I am not a newbie but I am not a very experience engineer as well. I do not mind the soapbox

The resisant virtues of the structure that we seek depend on their form; it is through their form that they are stable, not because of an awkward accumulation of material. There is nothing more noble and elegant from an intellectual viewpoint than this: to resist through form. Eladio Dieste

 

[rowingengineer]

A lot of what Ron writes is true. However these are "less than desired" manner, you stated unethical happenings in your original post normally unethical behaviour is not an everyday situation.

Checking is a subjective requirement, how much and how little is subjective to the confidence of the signing engineer, involvement in the design evolution and the capabilities of the original engineer. Procedures in their enforcement is also subjective, if you have to tight control on procedures you will often miss a huge problem because the procedure didn’t cover that instance, however if the procedures are too lax, little errors will grow into large.

I myself am a small firm man, have worked for 4 different companies in my time. I have only had one unethical event, wasn’t the lack of checking or similar, it was a blatant disregard for safety in my opinion. However, I have also been involved with three cases of ethical conduct reviews, and these have been of engineers from three different levels of firms, small, large and government.

In all these instances, unethical behaviour has been allowed to happen due to people unwillingness to stand up.
Next time you see an unethical situation developing, stand-up and be counted. If someone is knowingly developing design well below accepted standards, then take action. I wish I had taken more action when I had the chance, nothing came of the situation but I always wonder what if.

An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made in a very narrow field

 

[Calif]

I here you Rowing but let me say this. No one checks other engineer work and this is on a regular basis. The person who signs it, is not even an engineer who practices it by career. He just signs off but he does not check it. I this is a ongoing thing not something that happens sometimes. It is sometimes that engineering calcs are checked by someone. This has happen to me twice while working for a small firm. Now, is the person who designs but does not sign drawings nor have anyone look over their work, nor is license, responsible if a structural failure occurs?

The resisant virtues of the structure that we seek depend on their form; it is through their form that they are stable, not because of an awkward accumulation of material. There is nothing more noble and elegant from an intellectual viewpoint than this: to resist through form. Eladio Dieste