Whose. Suggest you correct the title.

If the P.E. is representing the company, then the company name. If the P.E. is representing themselves, then their name.

Naming the P.E. alone when part of a company is no shield to the company being sued. It takes two seconds to say "If the P.E. is wrong, why did the company not discover this and why did the company employ them?"

"The concrete was not adequate."

Signed,

Company Name
Joe Schmo, P.E. <signed seal of Joe Schmo>

Joe Schmo is an agent of the company, providing legal (they are licensed) engineering services.
Joe is not working for the client directly.
He is only an agent providing services under the company and for the client.

The company is not a licensed engineer.
The company is only providing licensed engineer services via Joe to the client.

Use "we", not "I".

You can correct the title yourself. Just hit the 'edit' button and fix it. If that doesn't work, hit the 'report' button and ask for the title to be fixed. Your thread is about language, so give it a good start. After you do it, I will delete my threads.

I've never seen this "hit the road" so....

I dislike the use of "we" however, as these comments are usually written by one person and "we" implies or leads one to believe this is a consensus opinion involving more than one person. Even if there is a peer review, "we" is inaccurate. If the report is co-written and signed by both parties, fine, use we. Otherwise it's borderline (or clearly) deceptive.

The way it works here:
I have been told to be very careful with saying 'I' - it should be 'We' or 'Company name', and you sign it something like 'on behalf of'
You want to make it clear that it's the company's instruction
Supposedly there is some case law around it

Legally, as a Chartered Professional Engineer, we have a Code of Ethics that we have to follow (an Act of Parliament so it's an actual law)
We could still get wrecked if we failed this obligation, but that's at least different to liability for a mistake falling on you personally vs on a Limited Liability company

Quote (lexpatrie)

I dislike the use of "we" however, as these comments are usually written by one person and "we" implies or leads one to believe this is a consensus opinion involving more than one person. Even if there is a peer review, "we" is inaccurate. If the report is co-written and signed by both parties, fine, use we. Otherwise it's borderline (or clearly) deceptive.

I agree with this. We does not seem suitable if the report is written and prepared by a single person.

I do try to avoid the use of "I". I do so by trying to stick to facts using phrase like:
"a site visit occured"
"it was observed",
"the analysis showed";
When an opinion is made I might use language like "In light of the analysis, it is the authors opinion that..."

(Though I won't claim to be an expert report writer and I've never worked in a firm with other report writing engineers.)

Quote (Greenalleycat)

I have been told to be very careful with saying 'I' - it should be 'We' or 'Company name', and you sign it something like 'on behalf of'
You want to make it clear that it's the company's instruction
Supposedly there is some case law around it

I question the veracity of that. Not that I'm question what you have been told, just on whether that is a correct legal interpretation. And I believe you also operate in Australia (or maybe NZ)?

I'm in NZ. Dad told me this (engineer of 45 years) so I (we) roll with it
In practice, when I'm saying things that I feel are relatively non-contentious or factual I commonly use 'I' because they're my observations
When it comes to issuing instructions or saying anything contentious I always use 'we'
I think Dad also uses your tactic of not saying 'I' or 'we' on a lot of things - just making statements without personal touch.

RE: "'we' implies or leads one to believe this is a consensus opinion involving more than one person."
At the end of the day, I am acting on behalf of the business that employees me, which is a structural engineering business with licensed engineers as Directors
I have no particular individual authority on the job - my authority comes from the client's contract with my employer, and I am representing the company on site
If I say something wrong and fuck it up for the company, well that's just bad luck - that's the risk of any business owner
It would be more wrong for someone to turn around and blame 'I' when 'I' am just doing my job. A company can't avoid their obligations by blaming an employee who is doing what they are employed to do

I thought this was a broader context than just Producer Statements?
I interpreted this as general communication - emails, site records, all that
A Producer Statement is not a legally-required document, the Memorandum is
The PS1 template has "on behalf of xyz company" baked into it and refers to the Engineering Design Firm

Anyway, doesn't the fact that our friendly Bad Engineering Consulting Assholes tried & failed to blame the individuals support that the company can't just get out of it?
Out of interest, I've just looked up my own IEA and this is the clause relating to liabilities
Gonna need a lawyer to tell me whether this means I'm covered for 'almost everything' or 'almost nothing'


Certainly you attract some level of personal liability by virtue of being a CPEng engineer putting your name on stuff but ultimately you act and speak on behalf of the company
Your personal liability for being CPEng is in addition to the liability attracted by the company - it doesn't subtract from it

It appears that there is the same rainbow of opinions on eng-tips as my office, and maybe the consensus is that there is none.

I have seen in depositions where an attorney picks on the use of "we" and needs to clarify that it is actually the opinion of the engineer and not of multiple individuals. Personally, I find the use of "we" as a defensive mechanism in writing, being afraid to take a stand about a conclusion (safety in numbers type thing).

And yes, you can get sued individually as the engineer (several vs joint liability). I've seen it happen, and in all instances the corporation's counsel defends the individual engineer. I have heard that there are certain states that do not allow this corporate defense of the individual; it's just that i've personally never witnessed it in one of those states.

I [we] think we [we] can all [some of us] agree that everything is fine until the lawyers get involved
Then you're screwed regardless because they will always find a way to fuck you over if they can

You could very well have multiple engineers with multiple contradictory opinions working for the same company.
Assuming you don't take a poll on every question or don't have some CEO proclaiming an "official" opinion on each topic, I'd say it's the individual's opinion.

Is the contract with the individual or the corporation?

JStephen, that scenario is rare, at least where I have worked. This is in the civil/structural design office environment. When a report is required, it is usual for one senior engineer to be assigned the task. When a draft is complete, it is then reviewed by one or more other engineers in the office who have relevant experience. Generally the department head will issue the final report, signed by an authorized Principal or Associate who is part of the ownership group. Any opinions in the report will be 'our opinions'.

If you're authorized to sign on company letterhead then you're authorized to speak for the company, and that's what you're doing.

The company should have a clear policy defining who can sign what, for how much, etc. If no policy exists, then the lawyers might get involved after the fact if things go badly. See greenallycat's summary of what happens then.

If you wrote and signed a letter stating "We agree to add X to our scope for $Y." that's it, you've just committed the company. (Unless of course you don't have authorization to do that, then you've just embarrassed the company (and potentially enriched the lawyers).)

Why would an "opinion" be any different?

No disagreement from me, Mint.

I too agree with MintJulep regarding authorisation to speak for the company. However there logic of the examples give don't clearly follow:

Quote (MintJulep)

If you wrote and signed a letter stating "We agree to add X to our scope for $Y." that's it, you've just committed the company.

Companies are financial and legal entities that can commit to a legal contract.

Quote (MintJulep)

Why would an "opinion" be any different?

Companies can't hold a thought/voice/opinion. Companies are obviously not sentient and do not hold opinions.

Of course it is totally common for companies to attempt to speak with one voice regarding thoughts/opinions etc.. But attempting it doesn't make it true.


In my communications I use both "we" and "I". However In a report I will generally provide opinions in terms of "I" and recommendations in terms of "we" or generally in a neutral voice for both. A company can provide recommendations, advice, services etc. A company cannot hold an opinion.

With respect, human909, that is gobbledegook, at least in my opinion. An engineering opinion commits the company. I had to look up the meaning of 'sentient'.

I'm not sure how this is a difficult topic to grasp

Everyone [clients, contractors, engineers with opinions, whatever] understands that people within a company may hold different opinions - that is a natural challenge of any business to manage
However, from the perspective of something leaving the business on company letterhead, that is irrelevant
The business owns the opinion because they employ the person that wrote it - the business cannot walk away from it arbitrarily

Now, sometimes mistakes or significant disagreements happen and a company (i.e. a group of senior people within the company) may try to walk back something that has been said or done
The obvious example being a senior person realising a junior fucked up on site...again, rationally, most people will understand this and try to accommodate it if they can
But if it's too late - say the project has moved on and the mistake cannot be underdone without cost, then the company foots the bill
They cannot blame their junior and say it was the junior's individual opinion...the company owns that opinion.

So, from a practical perspective, an individual's and a company's opinions are the same once transmitted via formal means
Disagreements are to be behind closed doors only

Quote (hokie66)

With respect, human909, that is gobbledegook, at least in my opinion.

If you had to look up sentient then I'm not surprised you found that gobbledegook!! But surely that is on you.

Quote (hokie66)

An engineering opinion commits the company.

You have a noun there and are verb in that sentence. A company can be committed in a legal and financial sense by an opinion presented in a report. But the company as a non sentient entity can no more have an opinion that my the couch I am sitting on.

If in this discussion we cannot distinguish between an entity capable of thought and an entity not capable of thought then we are going to have an issue having a clear conversation.

Quote (geotechguy1)

For what it's worth I prefer using 'We' and interpret it to mean 'this is the position of a company', although everyone has a different opinion of it.

I agree with this. And like I've said previously I will use the word "we" in professional communication. But when referring to opinions I will refer to the person or the people that hold that opinion. Eg; we the authors, or I the author.

human, whilst I agree that hokie not knowing the word 'sentient' is a personal failing for him () I don't think the sentience of a company is the topic at hand

As I understand, this is really a question around (1) liability and (2) the collective ownership of employees of a company of another employee's opinion

To me, from the perspective of (1) it is simple - the company owns the opinion. I've already been through this so let us not beat the sentient dog

(2) is an interesting one and I can understand the reluctance of one person to feel that they 'own' the opinion of another that they disagree with
I encounter this every week - we have several directors of equal experience and ownership who agree on 90% of their practice and have their own twists on the last 10%
They use those differing opinions to their advantage - as I got told in my interview with them, it's only a mistake once it leaves the company, robust discussion is beneficial to all involved
As a company member I feel you have an obligation to protect the interests of the company (generally speaking, obviously life safety ethics blah blah can overrule it) - so disagreements should be held privately and you should publicly respect your colleagues' opinions
If you have an issue, raise it behind closed doors then respond with the new position - I've certainly done this before, and I imagine most people do
But, you should NOT trash talk a colleague's opinion that you disagree with

An engineering report is the company. Insurance and trading is all under the company name and so it make sense that it speaks as the fictional person that is the legal entity of the company. (Although the practical effect is that it's written in neutral and factual terms.)

A legal report (giving an expert engineering opinion) is in first person under my name. Because that is the role I would speak to the court and not as the company.

@George, I was discussing this topic (because of this post) with my boss this afternoon
He also does a lot of Expert Witness work and raised the same thing - he felt that he was speaking as himself, not the company
But I made the same point - who gets paid, him or the company? The company does of course
The company obviously relies on his expertise, and in Expert Witness or similar work he puts more personal liability on the line - he is using his qualifications, expertise, and reputation which are all personal attributes after all
But his words still fundamentally bind the company unless he is paid directly and acts in independent capacity only

The way I see it, you can change your own personal liability depending on the situation and wording you use, but you pretty much don't change the company's position

Quote (Greenalleycat)

@George, I was discussing this topic (because of this post) with my boss this afternoon
He also does a lot of Expert Witness work and raised the same thing - he felt that he was speaking as himself, not the company
But I made the same point - who gets paid, him or the company? The company does of course
The company obviously relies on his expertise, and in Expert Witness or similar work he puts more personal liability on the line - he is using his qualifications, expertise, and reputation which are all personal attributes after all
But his words still fundamentally bind the company unless he is paid directly and acts in independent capacity only

The way I see it, you can change your own personal liability depending on the situation and wording you use, but you pretty much don't change the company's position

While money is a necessity, when it comes to court work it shouldn't be a consideration in terms of the opinion given - because whichever side you are instructed by, the opinion must be independent. No-one should ever be 'paid on results' for court work so you can put it to one side in this scenario. Afterall, if you are summoned as a normal witness then you are only getting expenses!

In theory you may be able to get an expert opinion from a company 'fictional person' either in the form of a written statements or by nominating a controlling mind to talk on the company's behalf, but I don't think either side would want it. It would look like dodging responsibility and it'd be easy to tear apart the opinion as being paperthin.

As it is set up now, everything is done so that it is you as an individual who has to make a declaration in your report and put yourself under oath in court. You'd also have to get the judge to agree to a company being an expert and I don't think they'd like it very much either.

"You have a noun there and are verb in that sentence." Please explain. This thread is more and more about grammar. That's the way it started.

I try not to use "I" or "We".
"We" is just a strength-in-numbers tactic. I cringe when I read competitor's reports like that - especially when I know the content is all BS.

I try to avoid first person pronouns in my technical and formal business writing. "The author" or "the company" (but usually the actual name of the company) is my preferred way of doing it.

NOT that I'm an attorney, or that I have any formal training in legal matters, but having seen a few things...... use at your own risk.

Quote (geotechguy1)

Lawyers who work for corporations do not have a fiduciary duty to protect you as an individual engineer, they have one to protect the company,

This is accurate, although in the more nuanced sense, protecting the individual engineer would likely or at least potentially protect the company in a lot of situations. In the U.S. the employer is on the hook to defend an individual employee who is doing the work as instructed (I don't know the exact terminology). Rogue employee defenses (when true and substantiated in the documentation), are a different matter.

Second, one would not typically go after an individual engineer, as a) being an employee they have no liability insurance, b) see above, individual would assert indemnity and point at the company in question employing them during their legally done work as an employee, so it would go nowhere and risk dismissal (with prejudice?). Attorneys tend to stay within the fences of established practice. Going after an individual employee is rare. c) in civil litigation "all parties" are named, most commonly. Some attorneys prefer to force the G.C. to bring in the subs, but we're talking engineering disputes here, not exactly the same creature, and G.C.'s are on the hook for the work of their subs and have "non-delegable" duties as well, so it's a different creature anyway (everything in law is a different creature.... all cases are unique). In the P.E. sense, I suspect they'd name the company and the engineer. (You could delve into, say, the Hard Rock, but I'm not sure Heaslip engineering even got sued. But Champlain Towers South involved Morabito and a ton of other parties.

Quote (geotechguy1)

they are not obligated to tell you the truth if it is against the interests of the company (which it is).

That's Human Resources, not the attorneys.

This doesn't sound ethical, or legal for that matter, but "you should get your own attorney" would be a sort of indicator that there's a deeper issue at play.

Quote (geotechguy1)

Also, in both of the big recent cases in NZ (involving Hopeless and Bad Engineering Consulting Assholes) the first thing the companies lawyers did was attempt to argue it was all the individual engineers fault and that the company and it's insurance should be off the hook. It didn't work but that's the strategy they take.

If the names are a matter of public record, mentioning the company is probably fine. But steer away from the name calling, aspersions and potential defamation claims.....

Well, another 1802 legal theory of liability falls flat.....

Alleycat - I think the "negligence" bit is intended for your various regulatory boards going after an engineer for negligence, i.e. a disciplinary action. "illegal acts" - so maybe these are acts as a "private citizen" so being an employer doesn't mean you're on the hook to defend your employee when they drive into a crowd of citizens milling about a bus stop.

Quote (Greenalleycat)

Certainly you attract some level of personal liability by virtue of being a CPEng engineer putting your name on stuff but ultimately you act and speak on behalf of the company Your personal liability for being CPEng is in addition to the liability attracted by the company - it doesn't subtract from it

Most likely not. I'm not so sure about this one, financially the liability goes to the firm, (the firm is on the contract.... if it's a contract tort, then the contract language mattes) almost certainly, as to "other" consequences (if you consider that liability), like losing your license for being incompetent, that is a separate matter and WOULD fall on the engineer in question (so, Hyatt regency, financial fell on the firm, the engineer (Duncan?) lost their license), and the employer might not be on the hook for defending them, but they might be able to, if their insurance provided coverage for legal expenses of this nature. I suspect these are "off" standard O&E policies.

Quote (greenalleycat)

I [we] think we [we] can all [some of us] agree that everything is fine until the lawyers get involved
Then you're screwed regardless because they will always find a way to fuck you over if they can

Actually, NO. We [I{ cannot agree to any of that.

This is not an accurate description. The nature of the job is to pursue (financial) damages where a tort (wrongdoing) has been committed (ignoring the vast body of criminal law, here).

Violate the fine print on a contract = tort. Which type of tort gets pursued is a legal decision (delay claim, negligence per se, strict negligence, Qui tam, etc.). The courts (or rather, the clerks who work for the judges who write the opinions the judges tend to sign) aren't all that friendly to far-reaching and extremely technical violations, flights of fantasy, etc., so a lawyer will advise their client that this is "unlikely to prevail" as they aren't supposed to just plow client money at something for no reason with zero hope of success. Should the client wish to proceed in full view of them most likely wasting their time and flushing money down the toilet, that's the client's call. While an attorney, (to your view) may be dedicated to screwing you, it's because they are the screwdriver in the hand of someone else, (the client). [ if you want some context on that look at the various Dominion/My Pillow/Mike Lindell lawsuits, or the Eddie Grant versus the Trump campaign over use of music, even the news coverage will give you some insight].

Now, keep in mind sometimes the object is to settle, i.e. nobody admits any wrongdoing and just to make the process stop (once summary judgement and JMOL are no longer on the horizon), money is sometimes given, (your various big tobacco lawsuits and whatnot are in this area, though I suspect there was a lot of "control the liability" versus court involved, versus say "pay them it's stupid make it go away").

There are other situations (where the dispute has no real merit, yet the insured's policy only covers a "set value" of legal defenses, once the money in that account is gone, a settlement can be forced, as the client is then out of pocket on the defense, regardless of how legitimate the claim is, and even if they prevail (which is likely) they'd have to finance the dispute to keep it going, i.e. settlement isn't always somebody paying to make it go away even though it's stupid, sometimes they settle so the insurance pays for the loss. And sometimes they'd rather not risk trial even though it's stupid.

Quote (human909)

Companies can't hold a thought/voice/opinion. Companies are obviously not sentient and do not hold opinions.

Ah, well. Here in the U.S. Corporations are people and can hold both opinions and religious views. (See Citizen's United and Hobby Lobby). Besides the point, pretty much, but worth mentioning.

I'd say more but I'm out of time for today.

So did "we" conclude what the "forum opinion" was on the question at hand?

I think "we" is fairly typical but it doesn't mean what it says, (and I seriously doubt there is much going on in terms of legal implications, at least in the U.S.) as far as your average engineering report it's not all that meaningful anyway, "we recommend deep foundations", that kind of thing. "Normal" engineering reports.

Where it irks me is "we" when there's a single guy, a sole proprietor, or one dude on the site writing an opinion (usually regarding storm damage) and they go "we", like they had a therapy animal with them or something. To me that's where it gets borderline deceptive. Then some guy in another state looks it over as a "peer review" and somehow there's a "we" involved, to me that's murky, it suggests that there were two people on site.

The whole "use the passive voice" sucks the life out of anything you write down, but that's a stylistic choice, if you like that go for it.

There is always a way to write a technical report without using "I","we", "Joe Schmoe" or "company name"; that is the best option. Signature and company name at the end of the report explains adequately who prepared it.

The use passive verbs in reports are to be shied away from. Shy away from using passive verbs in reports.

"The structure was observed", "the site was visited", may seem more technical - but they just make reports chewy and harder to read. That's my opinion (and of those who beat me with a rubber hose....err, I mean, edited and reedited my report drafts for years).

I think it makes sense to structure most reports in a format that resembles:

Project Understanding. This is where you setup the whole thing, including, whether you're speaking as an "I" or as a "we." If the Client asked Your Firm to do a thing, then I feel comfortable defaulting to using "we" (the firm). Sure, you're an individual who is steering the report. Sure, you may have been the only person of the firm's "field team" to visit the site. But in this example, you're part of and speaking for a firm , so I like "we." If you're a one-man-band, then the "we" feels a bit like the "royal we" and should be avoided in favor of "I."

Observations. Please, please, please don't write a book report on what you did to make your observations - you should just present the condition out there at the time you were there. "I drove to the site on a Tuesday and parked my car. I walked a short walk to the site. I then walked onto the site and saw that the concrete was gray. I then walked over to the cliff and saw that the slope was steep. I then looked back and saw that the concrete structure was leaning toward the cliff. I then decided to run. I then.... I then.... ACH. While it's not the worse way to structure an observation section, in my opinion, you're not the focus - the thing is.

So while it's useful to give a "who, where, when, why" opening blurb...the observations should shy away from "I saw" to "The thing is."

We observed the project site on Tuesday, December 41st, 2099. While on site, we observed the following: The parking lot is located near the project site. The concrete structure is gray. The structure is located near a steep cliff. The structure is leaning toward the cliff. Etc. It's just more readable.

Assessments. Based upon our observations and understanding of the project, we assess the following: The concrete structure is in a potentially unsafe condition. Etc.

Recommendations. Based upon our assessments, we recommend the following: The Owner should limit access to the project site without delay. The Engineer of Record and Contractor should be notified of this condition without delay so they can take prudent measures assess the condition and stabilize the structure to reduce the hazard to site occupants or the public. Etc.

Assumptions and Limitations. Our assessments and recommendations are subject to the following assumptions and limitations: Our observations and assessments are based upon what our field team could see at the time of their visit only. We did not attempt to measure the magnitude of the lean using survey or other field measuring equipment. Etc.

Etc. I know that this is an unsolicited report format blurt out adminst of a "we" vs. "I" discussion. But I think that the professional in responsible charge of the project will always be dragged into an issue on the project site, regardless if he/she is using "we" or "I" in the report, regardless if they're working as an employee of a firm.

So I think that by defining the project team up front (we vs I),and then making the report as readable as possible usually is the right move.

That's our two cents. That's my two cents.

Must. Not. Edit......


FAIL.

Give e-prime a look (it's a writing thing, not software). Try to eliminate "is" verbs. So...

The parking lot is located near the project site. [Ed: Doesn't quite seem relevant]. The concrete structure is gray. The structure is located near a steep cliff. The structure is leaning toward the cliff. Etc. It's just more readable.

The structure, made of grey concrete (Ed: why do we care?), sits near a steep cliff and leans toward the cliff.

Also, "we" veered significantly off the original question.