Civil Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
7.3
Negligence
In legal vocabulary torts are usually referred to as violation of the people from their
personal or business duties. Also in these references torts are commonly divided to
three major subsets of negligence, intentional violation and strict liability. As it was
mentioned earlier, among all torts, negligence is the main one placed in a gray area
that if can be proved can drag the professional into legal trouble. Negligence by
defi nition is the proof of the professional failing to work with an acceptable level of
concern. Basically three conditions shall be provided to make a case for proof of
negligence. The fi rst two conditions are the existence of an obligation or duty, and
ground for believing the professional has failed to perform his work or deliver his
obligation. The fi nal condition of proof of negligence is the evidence that failing to
perform this duty or obligation has caused measurable damage for another person
or entity. Generally the existence of a contract, as well as architectural and engineer-
ing codes and standards can be used to produce the condition of existence of a
responsibility for the architect or engineer to other persons or entities. Proof of
violation from the contract most of the times requires an architectural or engineer-
ing expert witness, since the regular jury usually is not familiar with the laws, regu-
lations, and common standards that the architects and engineers should bring their
acceptable performance levels up to. Finally a reasonable connection should be
existed between the lack of performance and claimed damages, and of course the
damages should be quantifi able.
Intentional torts and strict liabilities which are the other two subcategories of
torts are usually placed under a much clearer light from the legal stance and proper
effort should be done to avoid them at all time. Intentional torts are those breaches
of duty that are committed on purpose such as defamation of others, and strict lia-
bilities are constructing buildings that could be dangerous for general public.
7.4
Standard of Care
Standard of care per AIA defi nition applies that the architect (and engineer) perfor-
mance should not be expected to be perfect, but it should be in line with the degree
of skills ordinarily for any reputable professional in the same fi eld and in the similar
regions. This is a very reasonable and fair standard, and any architect or engineer
should strongly resist replacing of this performance requirement level with any
higher level of care in the language of his contract.
Not only the legal system understands that the professionals should not be hold
responsible to perform a perfect and fl awless service, but also the insurance compa-
nies that provide coverage for the architectural and engineering fi rms provide
insurance for the companies only up to the level of standard of care. Therefore
including any language that may possibly create a more stringent level of obligation
expectancy in the contract should be avoided. Including such languages in contract
