This guy sounds like he was telling the client what they wanted to hear, instead of the truth, and knew very well the roof was in bad shape. If this is proven to be true, then throw the book at him. Also, with something of this much importance, why this wasn't all in writing is very suspicious in and of itself. Even if I discover problems with a structure accidentally, I disclose this in writing to the owner and the building department.
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations TugboatEng on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Engineer charged in roof collapse 8
- Thread starter a2mfk
- Start date
I see the risk you are talking about BA, but I guess in all the numerous (many) "forensic" structural investigations that I've done over the years I've never ever said the building is "OK".
My reports always include a description of the building, observations, conclusions, and recommendations.
Most of these reports are initiated by some particular issue (settling foundation in a corner, crack in a wall, etc.)
My reports describe the conditions seen, what those particular conditions might mean, and what I think needs to happen.
I also end each report with something like this: "The observations, conclusions and recommendations in this report are based upon visual examinations of the exposed structural elements at the time of our visit. There may be conditions that were not visible that could affect the conclusions and recommendations. This report is not intended to guarantee or warranty that the entire structural system, or its parts, are safe and meet the provisions of the building code unless specifically stated."
Now I know that if something goes bad - all hell will break loose and my disclaimer above may not be entirely protective. But after 30+ years of doing this I've not had a problem (knock on wood).
I also agree with hokie66 that there is some level of obligation when building owners call for help on a crack or similar issue.
My reports always include a description of the building, observations, conclusions, and recommendations.
Most of these reports are initiated by some particular issue (settling foundation in a corner, crack in a wall, etc.)
My reports describe the conditions seen, what those particular conditions might mean, and what I think needs to happen.
I also end each report with something like this: "The observations, conclusions and recommendations in this report are based upon visual examinations of the exposed structural elements at the time of our visit. There may be conditions that were not visible that could affect the conclusions and recommendations. This report is not intended to guarantee or warranty that the entire structural system, or its parts, are safe and meet the provisions of the building code unless specifically stated."
Now I know that if something goes bad - all hell will break loose and my disclaimer above may not be entirely protective. But after 30+ years of doing this I've not had a problem (knock on wood).
I also agree with hokie66 that there is some level of obligation when building owners call for help on a crack or similar issue.
This discussion is great and I myself have had worries about writing reports on existing structures for fear of the unknown. In this particular instance, it appears as if the items in question were visible and the engineer saw their condition and made two different conflicting statements as to their condition. Had the connections been hidden and the engineer placed JAE's disclaimer on the report do you think he wouldn't have been found at fault? My guess is that he would have not lost his license.
The comments about insurance are quite funny because I have always thought of myself as a cheap insurance salesman. For a relatively small fee, I am basically giving my clients the ability to file a claim against me for as long as my insurance policy is open (no matter what the statue of limitations say as they can always be pierced by a cunning lawyer).
The comments about insurance are quite funny because I have always thought of myself as a cheap insurance salesman. For a relatively small fee, I am basically giving my clients the ability to file a claim against me for as long as my insurance policy is open (no matter what the statue of limitations say as they can always be pierced by a cunning lawyer).
- Thread starter
- #24
I think we can all agree that it appears this engineer was negligent and perhaps made false statements. This is an extreme example of a bad and unethical forensic engineer. But I would not let this extreme example scare you away from doing forensic investigations or other structural assessments.
I agree with JAE and his report verbiage. I have probably done 1500+ forensic investigations, usually in relation to very specific issues. You always state the scope of the investigation, and you never overstate your conclusions. But the bulk of these have been in reference to an insurance claim about a very specific problem. Besides the occasional letter from another engineer who disagrees with my findings, I have never been questioned in regards to , "What about the problems with X,Y,Z ?", when that was not part of my scope. If you pay a mechanic to only change your oil, and that is it, he is not at fault if your timing belt blows out as you leave the parking lot. It is all about agreeing upon a specific scope of services.
In BA's example, when working with banks and similar property owners/managers, if you are doing a property condition assessment, again you must be very clear what your scope was, because they can push the boundary and ask for very general qualifications. And bottom line, be prepared to walk away from a possible project if the client is asking something you cannot deliver for the fee. I am sure we have all just scared clients off on purpose from a rather risky job by giving them a fee you knew they wouldn't like, but was the only way you could do the job correctly. For all you know the other two engineers they ask for fees from do the same thing and you get the job with an adequate fee for your time and efforts.
When asked to asses a structure in an ambiguous way, you can qualify your conclusions with something like:
"No materials were removed during our investigation, nor was any destructive testing performed. Therefore, based on the visual observations performed during our limited investigation, there were no indications of a reduction in strength of _______________. We also did not note any other distress that would be indicative of ______________."
I agree with JAE and his report verbiage. I have probably done 1500+ forensic investigations, usually in relation to very specific issues. You always state the scope of the investigation, and you never overstate your conclusions. But the bulk of these have been in reference to an insurance claim about a very specific problem. Besides the occasional letter from another engineer who disagrees with my findings, I have never been questioned in regards to , "What about the problems with X,Y,Z ?", when that was not part of my scope. If you pay a mechanic to only change your oil, and that is it, he is not at fault if your timing belt blows out as you leave the parking lot. It is all about agreeing upon a specific scope of services.
In BA's example, when working with banks and similar property owners/managers, if you are doing a property condition assessment, again you must be very clear what your scope was, because they can push the boundary and ask for very general qualifications. And bottom line, be prepared to walk away from a possible project if the client is asking something you cannot deliver for the fee. I am sure we have all just scared clients off on purpose from a rather risky job by giving them a fee you knew they wouldn't like, but was the only way you could do the job correctly. For all you know the other two engineers they ask for fees from do the same thing and you get the job with an adequate fee for your time and efforts.
When asked to asses a structure in an ambiguous way, you can qualify your conclusions with something like:
"No materials were removed during our investigation, nor was any destructive testing performed. Therefore, based on the visual observations performed during our limited investigation, there were no indications of a reduction in strength of _______________. We also did not note any other distress that would be indicative of ______________."
-
2
- #25
a colleague recently informed me that geotechnical engineers a few years ago officially limited their liability/responsibility for soil values/behavior in their reports to exclude any abnormality in the soil not visually inspected or tested.....maybe someone can elaborate on this with accurate info....but it sound like something that could be useful to structural engineers for inspections...
- Thread starter
- #32
SAIL3- Now that I have worked for several years for a company that also does geology and geotech (in Florida), I think that is a fair enough disclaimer. If an owner/client only wants to do a few SPTs on a site, then they are taking a risk that something bad could get missed. I was surprised by the difference in geology just from one side of a house to the other in the results of 10' hand augers (ex sand in one, bad plastic clay in another). A geotech doesn't have any magic powers to see into the ground, so they go off the test data, just that simple. Maybe there is a pocket of plastic clay or organics that does not get discovered until excavation starts.
Case Study 1:
Early on in my career there was a big legal battle on a design-build project as it relates to organic soils that were discovered during construction. It required a lot of excavation and bringing in fill to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars, which was not anticipated because there were no SPTs in that area of the property. I don't know any details such as- did the geotech request testing in that area and someone denied it based on budget...
Cast Study 2:
Client brings our company in on a huge industrial project after the first geotech study revealed possible sinkhole activity in their SPTs. Our company goes back and does a LOT of geophysical testing of the entire site, which would have been better to do before the SPTs. A lot of problematic areas were identified for possible further exploration by SPT, avoiding by altering the site design, or remediation. The entire property had been cleared and a lot of site work had been done, but no foundations were dug at least...
Bottom line - you cannot predict very accurately what is going on underground, so you have a testing vs "acceptable risk" equation to balance.
Case Study 1:
Early on in my career there was a big legal battle on a design-build project as it relates to organic soils that were discovered during construction. It required a lot of excavation and bringing in fill to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars, which was not anticipated because there were no SPTs in that area of the property. I don't know any details such as- did the geotech request testing in that area and someone denied it based on budget...
Cast Study 2:
Client brings our company in on a huge industrial project after the first geotech study revealed possible sinkhole activity in their SPTs. Our company goes back and does a LOT of geophysical testing of the entire site, which would have been better to do before the SPTs. A lot of problematic areas were identified for possible further exploration by SPT, avoiding by altering the site design, or remediation. The entire property had been cleared and a lot of site work had been done, but no foundations were dug at least...
Bottom line - you cannot predict very accurately what is going on underground, so you have a testing vs "acceptable risk" equation to balance.
a2mfk...yes I have always considered the GeoTechs as taking the greatest risk in a project....
this engineer also stated that up until that liability limit was introduced that the Geotechnical Engineering profession was the most litigated/sued profession...Structural engineering inspections have alot of the same issues that the Geotech engrs have to deal with and could well do with a standardized libility limit format...
this engineer also stated that up until that liability limit was introduced that the Geotechnical Engineering profession was the most litigated/sued profession...Structural engineering inspections have alot of the same issues that the Geotech engrs have to deal with and could well do with a standardized libility limit format...
- Thread starter
- #34
SAIL- Unfortunately for SEs there is SO much variety out there in terms of scope, the structure, the problem, you have to write a detailed, individualized scope for each project, and detail exactly what you are going to do, and what your findings were based on. On the other hand, having been to several depositions now, and been asked a lot of basic questions about my investigations, it is my experience that "the law" usually doesn't expect us engineers to go above and beyond reasonable expectations, nor do they think we have X ray vision or other superpowers.
But, be smart and protect yourself in writing!
Also, as far as licensing goes, in Florida I believe they are on the soft side of things when it comes to disciplinary action, not to be confused with civil litigation. Cases in point:
But, be smart and protect yourself in writing!
Also, as far as licensing goes, in Florida I believe they are on the soft side of things when it comes to disciplinary action, not to be confused with civil litigation. Cases in point:
- Thread starter
- #35
This one has better and more examples of disciplinary action:
What a joke....... I hope the application for confidentiality gets thrown out of court
![[shocked]](/data/assets/smilies/shocked.gif "[shocked] [shocked]")
![[noevil]](/data/assets/smilies/noevil.gif "[noevil] [noevil]")
![[nosmiley]](/data/assets/smilies/nosmiley.gif "[nosmiley] [nosmiley]")
On my apple box...
I disagree... although I think he was wrong... if there is anything in the report that may prevent him from getting a fair trial, then he should be entitled to the benefit of the doubt. It is more important for him to get a fair trial... any of the information presented can be made available to the court.
Off my apple box...
I've gone over the report prepared for the OPP... and, in my opinion, it is poorly done.
Dik
I disagree... although I think he was wrong... if there is anything in the report that may prevent him from getting a fair trial, then he should be entitled to the benefit of the doubt. It is more important for him to get a fair trial... any of the information presented can be made available to the court.
Off my apple box...
I've gone over the report prepared for the OPP... and, in my opinion, it is poorly done.
Dik
-
1
- #40
DamsInc:
Differences are based on my normal preparation of Forensic Reports and may not be errors, just differences in the way I prepare stuff:
• The Without Prejudice is buried at the bottom of the page, in the fine print with the third party disclaimer, and could be disqualified by a Court.
• There does not appear to be a legal address for the mall stipulated; I couldn’t even find the province in Canada where the Algo Centre Mall is located. I would have identified it as 151 Ontario Avenue, Elliot Lake, Ontario.
• There does not appear to be a statement that any of the professionals were advised that their work was being reviewed.
• There does not appear to be a statement that any of the professionals were advised that material was retained as evidence for testing to permit them to undertake any other testing.
• There is no disclosure of conflicts. The report was prepared by an architectural firm. The problems may have been architectural and architects in Ontario are self insured. The architect prepared the drawings the engineer sealed.
• There is a lack of consistency in the spelling of the affected firms, and only one or two are correctly identified by their proper legal company name.
• The report was prepared for the Ontario Provincial Police, commonly known as the OPP. Only on the cover page is Ontario Provincial Police noted and no definition of ‘OPP’ is given. For the balance of the report, OPP is used.
• NORR was referrecd to by several names; it did not appear that NORR LIMITED was mentioned.
• Mr. Bryan England, one of the protagonists, was referred to as Brian England as well as Bryan England. There are several other individuals referred to in an imprecise manner.
• There is reference to a W25x100 beam.
• There numerous uses of imprecise wording: “can be said to narrowly meet”, indicated, appears, “the structural portion of the drawings … indicates a layer”, appears, implies, “is probably adequate”. “seems like a reasonable assumption”, “probably accounts for some”, “were almost completely gone”, etc.
• There is no stipulation that either the engineer or architect were registered at the time. The best that comes out, “no OAA license is present although it appears the OAA seals at the time did not include a license number. NORR has no reason to believe that James W. Keywan was not a member of the OAA in good standing at the time of the drawings being issued.”
• There are emotional terms used: victims, tragic, thwarted, etc.
• There are colloquial terms used, including: “…and in some cases the butterfly effect leading to the collapse in 2012…”. This implies some random causality. “It is worth noting”, “It was abundantly clear”, “In other words”, and the winner, “…nipped in the bud.”
• The building code in effect at the time should specifically be mentioned, including any revisions.
• There is a hierarchy of parts to the Ontario building code that is stipulated at the front of the code: Part, Section, Subsection, Article, Sentence, Clause, and Subclause. There is no consistency in the report. Articles were referred to as Sections and Subsections, Sentences were referred to as Subsections, Sentences were referred to as Sections, Articles and Sentences were referred to as Paragraphs and Sections, and the list goes on… maybe a dozen or two.
• There is no consistency in referring to Standards: CAN3 A23.3 should maybe be referred to as CSA Standard A23.3-M77. The reference in the CISC Steel Handbook (in effect at the time) is CSA Standard A23.3-60.
• Reference is made to CISC S16-09 and it should be CISC Steel Handbook, 10th Edition, or CSA Standard S16-09.
There are numerous technical errors… and the list goes on. It would take another page or two…
Dik
Differences are based on my normal preparation of Forensic Reports and may not be errors, just differences in the way I prepare stuff:
• The Without Prejudice is buried at the bottom of the page, in the fine print with the third party disclaimer, and could be disqualified by a Court.
• There does not appear to be a legal address for the mall stipulated; I couldn’t even find the province in Canada where the Algo Centre Mall is located. I would have identified it as 151 Ontario Avenue, Elliot Lake, Ontario.
• There does not appear to be a statement that any of the professionals were advised that their work was being reviewed.
• There does not appear to be a statement that any of the professionals were advised that material was retained as evidence for testing to permit them to undertake any other testing.
• There is no disclosure of conflicts. The report was prepared by an architectural firm. The problems may have been architectural and architects in Ontario are self insured. The architect prepared the drawings the engineer sealed.
• There is a lack of consistency in the spelling of the affected firms, and only one or two are correctly identified by their proper legal company name.
• The report was prepared for the Ontario Provincial Police, commonly known as the OPP. Only on the cover page is Ontario Provincial Police noted and no definition of ‘OPP’ is given. For the balance of the report, OPP is used.
• NORR was referrecd to by several names; it did not appear that NORR LIMITED was mentioned.
• Mr. Bryan England, one of the protagonists, was referred to as Brian England as well as Bryan England. There are several other individuals referred to in an imprecise manner.
• There is reference to a W25x100 beam.
• There numerous uses of imprecise wording: “can be said to narrowly meet”, indicated, appears, “the structural portion of the drawings … indicates a layer”, appears, implies, “is probably adequate”. “seems like a reasonable assumption”, “probably accounts for some”, “were almost completely gone”, etc.
• There is no stipulation that either the engineer or architect were registered at the time. The best that comes out, “no OAA license is present although it appears the OAA seals at the time did not include a license number. NORR has no reason to believe that James W. Keywan was not a member of the OAA in good standing at the time of the drawings being issued.”
• There are emotional terms used: victims, tragic, thwarted, etc.
• There are colloquial terms used, including: “…and in some cases the butterfly effect leading to the collapse in 2012…”. This implies some random causality. “It is worth noting”, “It was abundantly clear”, “In other words”, and the winner, “…nipped in the bud.”
• The building code in effect at the time should specifically be mentioned, including any revisions.
• There is a hierarchy of parts to the Ontario building code that is stipulated at the front of the code: Part, Section, Subsection, Article, Sentence, Clause, and Subclause. There is no consistency in the report. Articles were referred to as Sections and Subsections, Sentences were referred to as Subsections, Sentences were referred to as Sections, Articles and Sentences were referred to as Paragraphs and Sections, and the list goes on… maybe a dozen or two.
• There is no consistency in referring to Standards: CAN3 A23.3 should maybe be referred to as CSA Standard A23.3-M77. The reference in the CISC Steel Handbook (in effect at the time) is CSA Standard A23.3-60.
• Reference is made to CISC S16-09 and it should be CISC Steel Handbook, 10th Edition, or CSA Standard S16-09.
There are numerous technical errors… and the list goes on. It would take another page or two…
Dik
- Status
Similar threads
