The challenge of what the scope of the engineer's duties are, generally come up whenever a constructed component breaks down. One well known element to this query is whether or not an engineer's accountabilities stretch over and above a contractual liability with its employer.
In Strijdom Park Extension 6 (Pty) Ltd v Abcon (Pty) Ltd this concern was raised and resolved by the Supreme Court of Appeal.
Background
In this particular matter the engineer was hired by Strijdom Park Extension 6 (Pty) Ltd ("the employer") to design a steel reinforced concrete slab isolating the ground floor from the attic of a warehouse that has been put up by Abcon (Pty) Ltd ("the contractor"). The concrete slab failed two years after occupation of the factory had been taken.
The employer implemented an insurance claim for damages to the contractor and the engineer, claiming that they had breached their individual agreements with the employer. The claim against the engineer was settled, however the claim against the company was witnessed on appeal.
The parties were in agreement that the collapse must've occurred throughout the casting of the slab when the bare concrete was poured over and inside the network of strengthening steel.
The question which had to be decided on appeal was, for starters, whether or not the malfunction of the slab was at a minimum partly as a result of a defective architectural design and, second of all, whether or not the engineer had a duty towards the building contractors.
The Court considered the subsequent undeniable proof: * the malfunction was due to the failure of the higher of two woven mats of steel bars that were covered inside the cement to reinforce it; * the cave in had been a consequence thereof that many of stools (which kept both the mats apart) were found to have been bent out of shape; * the contact between the upper mat and the stools was limited to one bar of the mat resting on the centre of the horizontal piece of everyone of such stools; * the stools had not been mounted; and * the stool collapse occurred from the creation of the slab.
The Contractor's Argument
The Contractor, firstly, took the stance that it was not to blame for the damages because it had created the concrete slab in accordance with the engineer's design, which was allegedly defective.
Subsequently, the contractor relied on the fact that the engineer had authorised the way in which the support was fitted.
Last but not least, the contractor remarked that the engineer's design failed to show that there needed to be a couple of bars of the top mat per stool, nor how the stools must be secured.
The contractor claimed that it did not spot the failure of the top mat, nor did it appreciate that the stools had not been tied up. It is obvious from the contractor's proof that he left every appropriate decision related to the assembly of the support to the engineer and also the steel contractor.
The Employer's Argument
The employer asserted that: * It was the obligation of the contractor to assemble the reinforcement mats and also to maintain same in the right position.
* Proper construction procedure demanded that, whenever you can, two bars of the upper mat should be positioned on each stool and that the feet of the stools be bound. There is no reason for an engineer to point out these techniques on his drawings since these requirements are part and parcel of proper building practice and exclusively the contractor's responsibility.
* The contractor ought to have recognized the collapse throughout the pouring process and really should have discontinued the project so that they can seek advice from the engineer.
* If the contractor had observed its obligations as laid out previously, the disaster will not have transpired.
The Court's Approach
The Court concurred with the employer's stance.
There was no evidence supporting the allegation that the engineer's design was flawed. Although the engineer had authorised the steel structure on-site, he did not have a obligation to supervise the work of the contractor. It was the contractor's choice the way it performed the development job and it cannot transfer the blame on the engineer in the situation where it did not carry out its work in a proper and workmanlike manner. It was also the contractor's duty to ensure that the building of a design is free of defects.
In the Court's view, it was sensible of the engineer to expect that the contractor would make certain correct assembly of the reinforcement mat by recognizing any displacement and taking proper action if it occurred.
The Court further responded that the engineer had only a contractual obligation to its customer and never towards the contractor. The engineer did not even have a responsibility to get involved should the contractor seem to be failing (unless it was obvious to the engineer that the contractor was not sure of his job and would definitely make a mistake). Such a responsibility to intercede would only happen if the contractor seem set on an unbelievable act of recklessness.
The Court as a result held that the slab had failed because the contractor did not carry out the development in a proper and workmanlike style.
Decision
* An engineer's responsibilities aren't prolonged beyond what is laid out as part of his contract with his employer.
* An engineer will therefore not have the duty to watch over the work of a contractor, unless he is contractually required to do so and he can't be held responsible for another party's contractual violation.
In Strijdom Park Extension 6 (Pty) Ltd v Abcon (Pty) Ltd this concern was raised and resolved by the Supreme Court of Appeal.
Background
In this particular matter the engineer was hired by Strijdom Park Extension 6 (Pty) Ltd ("the employer") to design a steel reinforced concrete slab isolating the ground floor from the attic of a warehouse that has been put up by Abcon (Pty) Ltd ("the contractor"). The concrete slab failed two years after occupation of the factory had been taken.
The employer implemented an insurance claim for damages to the contractor and the engineer, claiming that they had breached their individual agreements with the employer. The claim against the engineer was settled, however the claim against the company was witnessed on appeal.
The parties were in agreement that the collapse must've occurred throughout the casting of the slab when the bare concrete was poured over and inside the network of strengthening steel.
The question which had to be decided on appeal was, for starters, whether or not the malfunction of the slab was at a minimum partly as a result of a defective architectural design and, second of all, whether or not the engineer had a duty towards the building contractors.
The Court considered the subsequent undeniable proof: * the malfunction was due to the failure of the higher of two woven mats of steel bars that were covered inside the cement to reinforce it; * the cave in had been a consequence thereof that many of stools (which kept both the mats apart) were found to have been bent out of shape; * the contact between the upper mat and the stools was limited to one bar of the mat resting on the centre of the horizontal piece of everyone of such stools; * the stools had not been mounted; and * the stool collapse occurred from the creation of the slab.
The Contractor's Argument
The Contractor, firstly, took the stance that it was not to blame for the damages because it had created the concrete slab in accordance with the engineer's design, which was allegedly defective.
Subsequently, the contractor relied on the fact that the engineer had authorised the way in which the support was fitted.
Last but not least, the contractor remarked that the engineer's design failed to show that there needed to be a couple of bars of the top mat per stool, nor how the stools must be secured.
The contractor claimed that it did not spot the failure of the top mat, nor did it appreciate that the stools had not been tied up. It is obvious from the contractor's proof that he left every appropriate decision related to the assembly of the support to the engineer and also the steel contractor.
The Employer's Argument
The employer asserted that: * It was the obligation of the contractor to assemble the reinforcement mats and also to maintain same in the right position.
* Proper construction procedure demanded that, whenever you can, two bars of the upper mat should be positioned on each stool and that the feet of the stools be bound. There is no reason for an engineer to point out these techniques on his drawings since these requirements are part and parcel of proper building practice and exclusively the contractor's responsibility.
* The contractor ought to have recognized the collapse throughout the pouring process and really should have discontinued the project so that they can seek advice from the engineer.
* If the contractor had observed its obligations as laid out previously, the disaster will not have transpired.
The Court's Approach
The Court concurred with the employer's stance.
There was no evidence supporting the allegation that the engineer's design was flawed. Although the engineer had authorised the steel structure on-site, he did not have a obligation to supervise the work of the contractor. It was the contractor's choice the way it performed the development job and it cannot transfer the blame on the engineer in the situation where it did not carry out its work in a proper and workmanlike manner. It was also the contractor's duty to ensure that the building of a design is free of defects.
In the Court's view, it was sensible of the engineer to expect that the contractor would make certain correct assembly of the reinforcement mat by recognizing any displacement and taking proper action if it occurred.
The Court further responded that the engineer had only a contractual obligation to its customer and never towards the contractor. The engineer did not even have a responsibility to get involved should the contractor seem to be failing (unless it was obvious to the engineer that the contractor was not sure of his job and would definitely make a mistake). Such a responsibility to intercede would only happen if the contractor seem set on an unbelievable act of recklessness.
The Court as a result held that the slab had failed because the contractor did not carry out the development in a proper and workmanlike style.
Decision
* An engineer's responsibilities aren't prolonged beyond what is laid out as part of his contract with his employer.
* An engineer will therefore not have the duty to watch over the work of a contractor, unless he is contractually required to do so and he can't be held responsible for another party's contractual violation.
About the Author:
Get accurate infomation on construction and engineering law. Let professional construction lawyers advise you on your duties and obligations.
No comments:
Post a Comment