Engineers vs Lawyers 10

I read an interesting article in the Manitoba association publication. For copyright reasons I’ll only post the link

http://www.apegm.mb.ca//keydocs/mpe/mpedocs/03jun.pdf

The article is on page 11 at the bottom of the page.

Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion

http://www.kitsonengineering.com

 

[IRstuff]

That's amusing, but lawyers are there to resolve contract disputes between engineers as well ;-)

TTFN

 

[PSE]

But why would engineers need contracts in the first place if it wasn't for lawyers?

 

[Binary]

The root of the problem is that we have professional legislators. They're just doing their jobs...legislating & legislating & legislating.... You never hear about them "unlegislating"

Good for the lawyers, bad for the rest of us.

 

[IRstuff]

Contracts are about understanding what each party thinks they're getting or paying for.

There are contracts written in Sumerian from thousands of years ago, well before the advent of lawyers.

If you've never had a dispute, the count your blessings. The rest of us live in world populated by Jeff Skillings and Ken Lays.



TTFN

 

[HamishMcTavish]

I tend to agree with IRStuff, if you work without a contract then sooner of later it will end in tears!

Having qualifications in both law and engineering my two penneth worth is this; not all lawyers are bad, they can help to solve legitimate disputes and if you have a good lawyer in your corner you will be happy. Some lawyers approach the law in a different way, trying to manipulate the meaning of statutes to bring a case where there is none. Long after the dust has settled the only winner is the person who generated the hope that a plaintiff could win...

Regarding the adversarial process; it has its advantages but only if not abused. The french use the inquisitorial process to great effect but some say that this can be open to bias. Ultimately a judge or jury decide the outcome, juries are notoriously fickle but are supposed to represent the public at large!

Regards, HM.

No more things should be presumed to exist than are absolutely necessary - William of Occam

 

[RDK]

While I agree in principle with the adversarial process when it comes to legal issues, this should be tempered with a more global view. Lawyers should become responsible not only to their clients but to society as a whole, just like engineers.

The US legal system is often seen as a gigantic lottery. A suit is brought in the hopes of getting not only damages and costs but a huge punitive award as well. Since the lawyers take one third or so as their fee cases are often brought as speculative business deals and not only to seek true justice.

Here in Canada the concept of punitive awards and contingency fees are not allowed in our system. Damages for pain and suffering are also rare. Thus we do not get the out of control judgments that occur in the US.

I’m not sure that I agree with the banning of contingency fees. This will often deny justice those who cannot afford the fee up front. I do agree with not having punitive damages payable to the individual, I would like to see the concept where punitive damages are payable to the Crown, like a fine.

There is a web site dedicated to the abuses of the legal system. It’s named the Stella Award after the woman who sued for spilling hot coffee on herself. You can subscribe to a newsletter of outrageous abuses of the legal system at

http://www.stellaawards.com

Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion

http://www.kitsonengineering.com

 

[dik]

Rick:
My understanding of the case was that the punative damages were so high was because of the arrogance and indifference shown by the people representing the coffee supplier... What would you accept to have your vulnerable parts seriously scalded?

Another consideration is that this type of case gets hyped by those pointing out flaws... but, with law, most cases are far from this... it is not representative.

To arrive at a happy balance there are situations like this 'golden' one as well as ones where the person is victimized...at opposite ends of the spectrum!

 

[jimbo]

I have dealt with MANY lawyers in my consultant/forensic work, and am pleased to report that the expected 3% are NOT NICE. Lawyers are the preservers of the language, and I thank them for that.

I believe that 3% of the engineers and land surveyors are also NOT NICE. Some may call tham crooks. I doubt that the amount varies much in any activity.

I am retired now and very pleased that I have not been sued in over 35 years of consultant work. Bragging? Definitely.
You really do have to be careful and fast on your feet.

 

[RDK]

Dik

Why should Stella personally profit because of the arrogance of the coffee supplier?

That is what punitive damages really are. They are not as much a punishment for the wrong doers but windfall profits for people who spill coffee in their laps.

Yes she was hurt and I can image how painful the scalds would be. However coffee is supposed to be hot and we all let it cool down before drinking. If the coffee was excessively hot then I can see how the supplier may be partially responsible for the damages. The actual damages, not a penalty that enriches the hurt individual.

You could probably find someone who would let you pour almost boiling water on his or her private parts for $5,000,000. If punitive damages accrue to the victim then that is in effect what is happening.

What about people, who in spite of knowing the dangers of tobacco continue to use these products and then sue the tobacco companies for billions. Should they be enriched because they lacked the willpower to quit smoking?



Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion

http://www.kitsonengineering.com

 

[sc]

It is all coming back to people knowing when they have had a genuine accident or a negligent accident.

For example, doing a Stella and spilling hot coffee on yourself, through your own actions is no-ones elses fault. You knew the coffee was hot, but you still accidentally spilled it on yourself. The company that you bought the coffee from did not prompt you to do that.

If the waiter spills the coffee on you, then it is his fault, as you did not cause the accident, it was his negligence.

I cannot for the life of me see how a coffee supplier could have any form of input into events related to accidental spillage of their product. (Please note that coffee is best made with boiling water or near boiling water, ie water that is 175 - 212 deg. F, we add milk to cool it!).

This is what really gets up my nose, people that do not take responsibility for their own actions and the lawyers that urge them on. I have a friend that is a lawyer, he is an exception as he does not chase money, he will not pursue an accident/illness/stupidity if he believes that the client could have been more responsible for their own actions.

Has anyone read the ethics that lawyers operate under? I would be interested to make a comparison with our own ethics.

Where intelligence should be applied stupidity rules!


regards
sc

 

[sc]

Have just found what I asked for at the Law Institue of Victoria (Australia).

Professional Ethics

A legal practitioners professional duties fall under three main headings. These are : the duty to the law, the duty to the court, and the duty to the client. The legal practitioner is closely associated with, and is part of the administration of the law. The legal practitioner should always uphold the law and this obligation is paramount.

The general principles of professional conduct are further outlined in Section 64 of the Legal Practice Act 1996. The Legal Practice Act 1996 identifies the following general principles of professional conduct :


In the service of a client to act honestly and fairly in the clients best interests.

Not to engage in, or assist, conduct that is calculated to defeat the ends of justice or is otherwise in breach of the law.

To act with all due skill and diligence.

To act with reasonable promptness.

To maintain a clients confidences.

To avoid conflicts of interest.

Refrain from charging excessive legal costs.

Act with honesty and candour in all dealings with courts and tribunals and otherwise discharge all duties owed to courts and tribunal.

Observe any undertaking given to a court or tribunal, the Legal Ombudsman, the Legal Practice Board, a Recognised Professional Association or another practitioner.

Act with honesty, fairness and courtesy in all dealings with other practitioners and firms in a manner conducive to advancing the public interest.

Conduct all dealings with other members of the community and the affairs of clients that effect the interests of others with honesty, fairness and courtesy in a manner conducive to advancing the public interest.


For comparison sake I have also included the Engineering Ethics link for Australia:

http://www.ieaust.org.au/about_us/documents.html

regards

sc

 

[HamishMcTavish]

The reason that Stella's case was successful was almost nothing to do with her contributory negligence but to do with the fact that the defence were able to prove not only that McD coffee was x degrees hotter than the competition but also that several other people had been scalded by McD coffee in the course of reasonably foreseeable activities.

Negligence arises when one person owes to another a duty of care and breaches that duty, and reasonably foreseeable harm arises as a result of that breach.

The cute part is that the jury awarded her the value of one day of coffee sales...mind you even that award was reduced during appeals. The annoying thing about the case is that it seems that McD could not rely on the fact that people should have (some) common sense. Plus the fact that it was portrayed as a lone individual harmed by 'big-business'.



No more things should be presumed to exist than are absolutely necessary - William of Occam

 

[dik]

Rick
Punative damages are just that... punative... and, made worse by the arrogance of those testifying. I have a general concept that 'contrition isn't necessarily good for the soul'... but, there are the odd exceptions...

We might want the courts to change the name to 'Unjust Reward Damages' or something... I don't think it would fly...

If I am destitute, then a levy of $10 may hurt... What would it take to punish someone like Bill Gates. The keyword is 'punative'!

and, yes... they could be windfall profits.

 

[jimbo]

No it ain't. the word is "punitive".

 

[RDK]

I have no problem with the wrong doer being punished. My problem is that the victim is unjustly rewarded often to ridiculous extremes.

The punitive damages simply should not go to the victim, at least not in the magnitude of some of the awards. If someone drives past my house exceeding the speed limit his fine goes to the crown. Why not have the punitive damages go to the state or federal government? That was the wrong doer is punished and since its often simply a random choice who gets hurt then all would benefit by having taxes lower. A lot of lawsuits are brought not for reasons of seeking justice and restitution of damages caused but for financial gain.

The concept of punitive damages is absent in our system. You can get actual damages and not much else. There also is no award for pain and suffering under the Canadian system. Couple this with nationalized health care and the number and magnitude of personal injury lawsuits is considerably smaller than in the US.


Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion

http://www.kitsonengineering.com

 

[IRstuff]

REgarding the McDonald's case mentioned herein. McD's was specifically punished with a large punitive damage for institutionalizing extremely dangerous conditions. As most of you migh be aware, 150°F water exposure for even 10 seconds will result in 3rd degree burns. McD's policy at that time was a mandatory 185°F coffee temperature.

The woman in question received 3rd degree burns through sweatpants, because of McD's willful and reckless endangerment of the public. The aerospace industry spends tons of money to perform safety assessments, to ensure that no exposed surface of any equipment will even reach 150°F. McD's ignored a known safety issue, since there had been records of many customer complaints.

TTFN

 

[BobPE]

IFstuff:

So McD's should stop using hot water for coffee??? McD's offered a product they did not invent. The product was well understood by the public at large, case history would show that there were billions of cups of coffee sold even well before McD's even started their business.

I dont think McD's should have been held responsible for something that the public created. Rather, should not have Stella sued the coffee inventor, which would have been defaulted to the public at large since they are responsible for the evolvement of coffee up to the point she was harmed?

She would not have been able to collect $$$$ that way...so go sue McD's was her avenue to gain $$$$$...thus allowing her to win the Stella award for herself....

BobPE

 

[IRstuff]

The question is what temperature should the coffee been at? 185°F water will scald you. If you had set your water heater to that temperature and your child got scalded, Child Services would lock you for child endangerment up in a heartbeat.

McD's sells to the public and in doing so, is obligated to ensure that the product is SAFE. I don't and have never seen ANY groundswell of public sentiment demanding that their coffee be scalding hot.

TTFN

 

[IRstuff]

Particularly in light of the fact that Starbuck's has rules and procedures to ensure that their coffee is nowhere near scalding temperature.

TTFN