Liability due to separate reports 7

[EngStuff]

We had a call today from a contractor that asked if we could provide a report that addressed the city concerns and provide repairs. During the call, I mentioned that if we see other structural issues that were not noted by the city, we will have to note them down on the report too. Contractor asked if we could provide two reports, one for the city to address their concern only, and a separate report for anything else that we see and note down. I asked the big guy (the boss) he said he is not willing to chance anything for a few hundred dollars, so we did turn down the job. We all had a back and forth in the office of what we thought.

Would engineers be held liable if there ends up being an issue that we brought up on a separate report that was not fixed. Because we are providing everything that the city requested strictly on one report, and another report strictly on what the contractor needs to do on other things that the city didn't bring up "catch".

One of the engineers had a good point about even if we don't get sued or are not financially liable, we are morally liable, and is an ethics violation. That became another back and forth too of ethically we brought it up to the contractor, we cannot assume what the contractor will or won't do. So even if the city didn't ask for it, we did our job, and it falls back to the contractor.

Obviously all this became hypothetical, since the boss didn't want to bother with taking on the job after being asked that question. Perhaps we would have never seen any issues besides what the city caught.

What do you guys think?

 

[Brad805]

From a business perspective, the risk v reward makes this a simple decision, no. From the actual request, it does not seem that cut and dry to me. If I am being asked to generate different reports discussing the same topic differently, no. If I am being asked to leave out safety issues, no. If it is a case where the GC wants the focus to be solely on the AHJ questions, but I know them to be a decent contractor that will deal with the other problems, I would listen. In our area some of the AHJ are no more skilled than children. Some of the worst have a power complex that can derail any well intentioned contractor. I work with many very good trades, and respect their ability to move things forward. I would not automatically assume the request was nefarious.

 

[dik]

Just as an observation... it's interesting that something can be legally correct, but morally wrong...

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Do you feel any better?

-Dik

 

[ALK2415]

@ DIK
therefore they invent the SHOTS !!!
TO MAKE YOU FEEL OK WITH IT

 

[dik]

Hehehehe...

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Do you feel any better?

-Dik

 

[Tomfh]

It all depends. If something is significant it needs to be addressed. If it’s of little consequence you need to show some discretion before blowing the whistle. You can’t just go on a fishing expedition for trivial non compliances.

Where you draw the line is a difficult question at times, but it is something we all do every day.

 

[le99]

While I understand the prevailing sentiment on this matter, I might take a little different approach to resolve the potential conflict of interests. Instead of refusing to take the job, I'll tell the contractor to expect two separate reports, and the report addressing the city's concern is contingent upon the successful completion of the repairs for the critical items, if any, besides the city's concerns. I think indiscriminately submitting the full report, including items not on the radar of the city, is likely to mud the water rather than getting the problems resolved, which is the real interest of every party involved. The contingency clause is non-negotiable though.

 

[JStephen]

I can see this working out in different ways, actually.
Just writing two separate reports knowing the customer will just toss one does not seem right.
One option would be to write two reports and cross-reference them, so each report says "For items not covered here, see Report No. xx".
One option is simply to write the report that "I was asked to view Beam X and Bolt Y to address comments by so-and-so, and review and inspection of all other materials is excluded from this report."

 

[Aesur]

If I were to provide the requested separate letters, I would reference the 2nd letter in the one that addresses the cities concern and make note that we were asked to provide these as separate letters. I'm sure this would piss off the contractor (which would probably show their true intent if it did), but seems to be the simplest solution should you take on the project, which I most likely would have passed on in the first place as those small fees just aren't usually worth my time/liability compared to other projects.