Firm Principals and Liability

[hemiv]

Is it possible for principals of a firm to be considered liable for errors or unethical activity of another principal?

I’ve got a situation where I believe a principal is practicing outside of his expertise (and encroaching on mine).

On the one hand, surely he is solely responsible since he is the one stamping. On the other hand, perhaps it could come back to bite me since I am the structural engineering expert of the firm.

 

[Greenalleycat]

This feels like a very nuanced situation and one that would be highly specific to your jurisdiction.
Some thoughts from what you've supplied

- Fundamentally the buck would stop with him if he is putting his stamp on something that he shouldn't.
- The firm would also be in the firing line. As a principal of that firm this could severely hurt your wallet and your firms reputation.
- You currently hold the belief that he is acting outside of his expertise and have now put that in writing online. I feel that you now have an ethical and legal obligation to do something about that.
- I don't understand your distinction that you are the 'structural engineering expert'.

 

[Just Some Nerd]

- I don't understand your distinction that you are the 'structural engineering expert'.

I assume their firm is multi-discipline in terms of engineering, and OP heads up the structural stuff. If another division steps out of their lane and starts doing structural work, someone will potentially start questioning how or why the structural division weren't overseeing it

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Why yes, I do in fact have no idea what I'm talking about

 

[Greenalleycat]

@nerd I assumed that as well but given the delicate nature of liability I wanted to hear hemiv explain it in their own words
We have a family motto....assumption is the mother of all fuck ups

 

[Tomfh]

You currently hold the belief that he is acting outside of his expertise and have now put that in writing online. I feel that you now have an ethical and legal obligation to do something about that.

Yes you’re responsible now.

 

[human909]

I'd still say it is somewhat nuanced.

Once you have your relevant licence/registration/suitable authority then you essentially have an extraordinary broad remit to design, practice and certify/stamp. That remit is almost exclusively limited by the concept of "practicing within ones area of competency/expertise".

In the normal flow of things the sole arbitrator of the later is the individual. Unless things go before legal, company or other authoritative panels.

But these concepts also conflict with the reality of learning. My entire career I've been practicing slightly beyond the edge of my "expertise" and arguably beyond my "competency".
The only way we learn and expand our expertise/competency is to practice outside of it.

**I've been somewhat broad with my language here because we have an interstate and and international audience here with different requirements and different language.

I’ve got a situation where I believe a principal is practicing outside of his expertise (and encroaching on mine).

Maybe I'm stating the obvious but have you had the conversation with him? Sure some people are stubborn and slow to change, but surely this is the starting point.

I've manage to implement change in a firm that built many structures essentially with no engineering oversite. Firms and people are often resistant to change. But with reasonable discussion good outcomes can come about.

 

[Eng16080]

I think I agree with Tomfh that "you're responsible now". At least, I think it best to proceed assuming this.

If something were to go wrong and it was known that you're the structural expert at the firm and/or had concerns about the other engineer's work, I find it hard to believe that a lawyer wouldn't at least try to drag you into potential litigation.

This is definitely tricky, but at this point, the best thing would be to have a discussion with the other engineer. Also, going forward, if this was my company and I was the structural expert, I would want any structural work (even minimal) to pass over my desk. Otherwise, you may well not be aware of a potential problem and whether it's fair or not, any structural problems associated with your firm are going to reflect poorly on you, the structural expert.

 

[hemiv]

Thanks all. The insight is helpful.

Yes, for clarification this is a multi-disciplinary firm and I am the structural guy.

 

[dik]

Bringing the matter up on a website, complicates the issue; you should have talked to a lawyer.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[DaveAtkins]

I think there are two issues here.

1) Can a principal of a firm stamp a multi-discipline set of drawings? I think the answer is yes, but many would disagree with me. I have never thought it was necessary for every discipline to have its stamp on a set of drawings.

2) Should a staff member be practicing outside their area of expertise? I think the answer is no, especially because there is another staff member who should be doing or at least reviewing the work of their discipline.

DaveAtkins

 

[jhnblgr]

What exactly is the design is being done outside the area of expertise?

Also do you know this person's experience in design or are you just going off a title?

Now I have ran into this occasionally an engineer submitted calculations for a retaining wall and found numerous errors that fundamentally should have been caught by a competent individual or shoring design where they failed to check for compression perpendicular to the grain and argued it wasn’t necessary because they fundamentally didn’t understand wood design. My opinion is these people are acting outside their area of expertise.

 

[phamENG]

While ethically I agree with others - you are aware and so you should do something - I think the original question of liability is quite different. THAT is going to depend upon your corporate structure. Are you a Professional <insert rest of title here>? (PC, PLLC, PLLP, etc.) If the answer is yes, then in general one professional cannot be held liable for the malpractice of another professional so long as the first is not party to the malpractice. If the answer is no, and you're just an LLC or a corporation, then I believe that protection is much thinner and all professionals could in theory be held liable. Of course, this is a question for a lawyer...and I'm not sure at what point you're a party to it...knowing about it and not doing anything wouldn't look great, though.