Ask a question from expert

Ask now

Components, Particularly of Negligence Claim

5 Pages2048 Words213 Views
   

Added on  2021-04-17

Components, Particularly of Negligence Claim

   Added on 2021-04-17

BookmarkShareRelated Documents
a)In such cases, the possible set of liabilities comes from statutory, tort and contract laws. Each ofthese measures may come into play based on how well the related parties want to pursue suchmatter. Statutory liability is one of the forms of liabilities that come into the existence whenstatute supplies the liability of one man to the other at the time when there is no basis for theliability.b) On the other hand, contractual liability comes from breaching of the contract. There must be acontract present in between both the two parties. Furthermore, because of the nature of that verycontract, it will describe the list of liabilities that an engineer may confront to or face. However,in order to form a contract breach in true terms, a person (engineer) must be a part of thecontract itself or has to be a part of any of the party to the contract. This will help the engineerto avoid personal liabilities, as they are not noted in a contract.c)The tort law determines and describes the limit of personal liability for the engineers. Itdescribes the components, particularly of negligence claim. However, there are few couple ofclaims that a person can make in the law. They include – battery, Negligence claims and assaultamong the others. The engineers are possibly to face the charges of reduced professionalism andmalpractice. The person who takes an engineer to the court because of the negligence of dutymust satisfy few requirements and they are – Causation, Duty, Damages, as well as breach ofthe standards of care. However, this particular case describes the possibility of the firm forbeing sued due to the damages that are done. Furthermore, the most possible approach is toseek. d)Contractual obligation mainly comes from the discussions about the doctrine of privity (Spierset al., 2015). The doctrine of privity determined the limit of a professional’s liability whichwould be very limited by the employment contract. In this case, doctrine of privity couldefficiently save the engineer from every liability. The very professional is being treated as thethird party, rather than a party to the contract. e)The case by Beacon v. SOM introduced an argument that the engineer owes Duty to the veryproperty owner. When the case was presented in the California Supreme Court, the BeaconResidential Cmty. Ass’n v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP held the ruling by claiming thatonly the owner of the property owns the engineer’s duty. This ruling is important in this casebecause the engineer has failed in his given duty to the property owner. The work of theengineer could have harm the owner’s building. The assessment of the engineer required muchdeeper analysis in order to present a more undeniable report. Ruling in the Beacon ResidentialCmty. Ass’n v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP supplies a total of six important points for theduty of the engineer to the property owner. The California Supreme Court has provided fewconsiderations while deciding on the liabilities and they are- injury, connection in between the
Components, Particularly of Negligence Claim_1
design and the injury, the public policies and the laws on prevention of future damage, thepotential of the damage on the in future owners of the building and benefits of the design for thecurrent and the future owners. f)According to the rulings, the engineers must ensure that all the building residents are safe,especially the owner himself. However, while the privity of the contracts creates a limit to thedamage done to the contract parties, there are several times when the privity might also bedisallowed. The decisions made by the court of New Jersey in the associates of Conforti &Eisele, Inc. v. John C. Morris have presented a situation that is similar to the one that ispresented in this case. It has resulted in contract that has lost a high cot because of inaccuratespecifications served by the contractor. He is a municipality who has contracted the engineer inorder to provide schematics for new building. Along with the engineer, he failed to supply bestspecifications of the building as he had promised. The court here allowed the cause showcasedin the tort despite of lacking of contractual relation in between the parties and the individualinvolved in the contract. Hence, in this case both the architect as well as the engineer is subjectto legal liability and action claims. Metrics that are provided by the ruling can be applied todetermine the negligence claims that must be pursued by the municipality. In case if thecontractor is lacking in a remedy, then the official designs must be blamed. g)Specifics of contract are important because the engineer does not guarantee a perfect plan. Thecontractual laws here apply as the said had agreed on the paper that the engineer supplies aperfect plan and few mistakes are been excused. Despite of the said provisions, the engineer stillmust ensure that he is submitting a best quality work. The failure in the contractor’s part toreview the work of the engineer is not considered as an excuse in the plan. From here it is clearthat the engineer and the engineering company are liable for the said mistakes or errors that aremade. It reflects that both engineer and architects has failed to supply the requirements.Moreover, the municipality also did not review that the earlier agreement were inconsequentialas it is their responsibility to monitor it.h)The reason for the fact that the construction crew is absolved of any of the blame in the legalargument is that of Spearin Doctrine (Dickson & Gerryshom, 2015). The doctrine states thatconstruction crew must not be blamed if the owner himself has provided them a constructionplans which re faulty. This doctrine deducts the liability and hence construction crew was notblamed. Only the engineer and his crew who are in charge of the project are blamed.i)Results of court cases for the parties could come from contract between both the parties. Thiscontract describes that the economic losses are fully covered and hence they could be used as
Components, Particularly of Negligence Claim_2

End of preview

Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.

Related Documents
Concurrent Liability - Contract and Tort
|9
|2371
|23

Duty of Care to Third Party Name of the student: English Tort Law 3 BUSINESS LAW 3 Duty of Care to Third Party Name of the University: Name of the Author note
|5
|927
|413

Business and Corporations Law
|10
|2577
|54

Tort of Negligence and Duty of Care in Extortionate PLC
|8
|1933
|54

Civil Engineering and Surveying Analysis of Case Studies 2017
|16
|4619
|456

Aspects of Contractual and Tort Law
|12
|3995
|192