The concern of what the degree of an engineer's obligations are, generally come into play whenever a constructed assembly falters. One well known part to this query is whether an engineer's tasks extend over and above a contractual obligation with its employer.
In Strijdom Park Extension 6 (Pty) Ltd v Abcon (Pty) Ltd this issue was raised and cleared up by way of the High Court of Appeal.
Background
In this case the engineer was employed by Strijdom Park Extension 6 (Pty) Ltd ("the employer") to design a steel reinforced layer of concrete isolating the ground floor from the basement of a warehouse that was constructed by Abcon (Pty) Ltd ("the contractor"). The layer of concrete broke 2 years after occupation of the facility had been taken.
The employer instituted a claim for loss against the service provider and the engineer, claiming that they breached their individual contracts with the company. The claim against the engineer was settled, however the claim against the company was witnessed on appeal.
The parties were in agreement that the failure must've taken place throughout the casting of the slab when the bare concrete was poured over and inside the network of the strengthening steel.
The question that had to be decided upon appeal was, firstly, whether or not the malfunction of the slab was at a minimum partly attributable to a faulty architectural design and, subsequently, whether the engineer had a responsibility towards the building contractors.
The Court took into account the following undisputed evidence: * the catastrophe was due to the collapse of the higher of two criss-cross mats of steel bars that was wrapped inside the cement to reinforce it; * the failure had been a result thereof many of stools (which kept the two mats apart) were found to have been bent out of shape; * the contact between the upper mat and the stools was restricted to one bar of the mat resting on the middle of the horizontal piece of each of such stools; * the stools had not been fixed; and * the stool collapse occurred from the creation of the slab.
The Contractor's Discussion
The Contractor, firstly, took the position that it was not to blame for the destruction because it had developed the concrete slab as outlined by the engineer's design, which was purportedly flawed.
Subsequently, the contractor trusted the fact the engineer had authorised the way the support was mounted.
In conclusion, the contractor pointed out that the engineer's design did not show that there had to be two bars of top mat per stool, nor that the stools had to be mounted.
The contractor claimed that it just didn't spot the collapse of the top mat, nor did it appreciate that the stools hadn't been tied up. It is obvious from the contractor's proof that he left every relevant decision pertaining to the putting together 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 put together the strengthening mats as well as build and maintain same in the correct position.
* Correct engineering practice required that, whenever you can, two bars of the top mat must be placed on each stool and that the feet of the stools be joined. There isn't any reason for an engineer to suggest these procedures on his drawings as these needs are part and parcel of proper engineering practice and entirely the contractor's obligation.
* The contractor should have noticed the failure throughout the pouring process and should have stopped the work so as to consult the engineer.
* If the contractor had observed its duties as set out previously, the failure will not have taken place.
The Court's Solution
The Court agreed with the employer's stance.
There was no evidence corroborating the allegation that the engineer's design was faulty. Even though the engineer had authorised the steel structure on-site, he didn't carry a responsibility to supervise the task of the contractor. It was the contractor's choice the way it executed the development work and it can't transfer the blame on the engineer in the circumstance where it didn't carry out its work in a suitable and workmanlike fashion. It had also been the contractor's obligation to ensure the construction of a design is free of defects.
Inside the Court's view, it had been reasonable of the engineer to anticipate that the contractor would make sure correct assembly of the strengthening mat by identifying any displacement and taking suitable action when it occurred.
The Court additionally clarified that the engineer had merely a contractual obligation to the client and never towards the contractor. The engineer didn't actually have a obligation to intervene should the contractor appear to be going wrong (unless it was evident to the engineer that the contractor was not sure of his business and would definitely get it wrong). Such a duty to get involved would only happen if the contractor appear set on an extraordinary act of recklessness.
The Court as a result held that the slab had broken because the contractor failed to carry out the development in a correct and workmanlike fashion.
Decision
* An engineer's responsibilities are not prolonged past what's arranged as part of his agreement with his employer.
* An engineer will therefore not have the duty to supervise the work of a contractor, unless he is contractually required to do so and he cannot be held responsible for a third party's contractual breach.
In Strijdom Park Extension 6 (Pty) Ltd v Abcon (Pty) Ltd this issue was raised and cleared up by way of the High Court of Appeal.
Background
In this case the engineer was employed by Strijdom Park Extension 6 (Pty) Ltd ("the employer") to design a steel reinforced layer of concrete isolating the ground floor from the basement of a warehouse that was constructed by Abcon (Pty) Ltd ("the contractor"). The layer of concrete broke 2 years after occupation of the facility had been taken.
The employer instituted a claim for loss against the service provider and the engineer, claiming that they breached their individual contracts with the company. The claim against the engineer was settled, however the claim against the company was witnessed on appeal.
The parties were in agreement that the failure must've taken place throughout the casting of the slab when the bare concrete was poured over and inside the network of the strengthening steel.
The question that had to be decided upon appeal was, firstly, whether or not the malfunction of the slab was at a minimum partly attributable to a faulty architectural design and, subsequently, whether the engineer had a responsibility towards the building contractors.
The Court took into account the following undisputed evidence: * the catastrophe was due to the collapse of the higher of two criss-cross mats of steel bars that was wrapped inside the cement to reinforce it; * the failure had been a result thereof many of stools (which kept the two mats apart) were found to have been bent out of shape; * the contact between the upper mat and the stools was restricted to one bar of the mat resting on the middle of the horizontal piece of each of such stools; * the stools had not been fixed; and * the stool collapse occurred from the creation of the slab.
The Contractor's Discussion
The Contractor, firstly, took the position that it was not to blame for the destruction because it had developed the concrete slab as outlined by the engineer's design, which was purportedly flawed.
Subsequently, the contractor trusted the fact the engineer had authorised the way the support was mounted.
In conclusion, the contractor pointed out that the engineer's design did not show that there had to be two bars of top mat per stool, nor that the stools had to be mounted.
The contractor claimed that it just didn't spot the collapse of the top mat, nor did it appreciate that the stools hadn't been tied up. It is obvious from the contractor's proof that he left every relevant decision pertaining to the putting together 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 put together the strengthening mats as well as build and maintain same in the correct position.
* Correct engineering practice required that, whenever you can, two bars of the top mat must be placed on each stool and that the feet of the stools be joined. There isn't any reason for an engineer to suggest these procedures on his drawings as these needs are part and parcel of proper engineering practice and entirely the contractor's obligation.
* The contractor should have noticed the failure throughout the pouring process and should have stopped the work so as to consult the engineer.
* If the contractor had observed its duties as set out previously, the failure will not have taken place.
The Court's Solution
The Court agreed with the employer's stance.
There was no evidence corroborating the allegation that the engineer's design was faulty. Even though the engineer had authorised the steel structure on-site, he didn't carry a responsibility to supervise the task of the contractor. It was the contractor's choice the way it executed the development work and it can't transfer the blame on the engineer in the circumstance where it didn't carry out its work in a suitable and workmanlike fashion. It had also been the contractor's obligation to ensure the construction of a design is free of defects.
Inside the Court's view, it had been reasonable of the engineer to anticipate that the contractor would make sure correct assembly of the strengthening mat by identifying any displacement and taking suitable action when it occurred.
The Court additionally clarified that the engineer had merely a contractual obligation to the client and never towards the contractor. The engineer didn't actually have a obligation to intervene should the contractor appear to be going wrong (unless it was evident to the engineer that the contractor was not sure of his business and would definitely get it wrong). Such a duty to get involved would only happen if the contractor appear set on an extraordinary act of recklessness.
The Court as a result held that the slab had broken because the contractor failed to carry out the development in a correct and workmanlike fashion.
Decision
* An engineer's responsibilities are not prolonged past what's arranged as part of his agreement with his employer.
* An engineer will therefore not have the duty to supervise the work of a contractor, unless he is contractually required to do so and he cannot be held responsible for a third party's contractual breach.
About the Author:
Get accurate infomation on engineering and construction disputes. Let professional construction lawyers advise you on your commitments and obligations.
