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 cowski on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Standard of Care 6
- Thread starter TreesMan
- Start date
"Recommended Guidelines for the Practice of Structural Engineering in California" by SEAOC
"National Practice Guidelines for the Structural Engineer of Record" by CASE
Though these are not standard of care, comprehensive list of engineer's roles and responsibilities are in these documents. Note that these are only guidelines and not regulations.
"National Practice Guidelines for the Structural Engineer of Record" by CASE
Though these are not standard of care, comprehensive list of engineer's roles and responsibilities are in these documents. Note that these are only guidelines and not regulations.
Senselessticker
Electrical
Treesman, back to your question: “ Anyone have experience with trying to define this, or seeing it defined in a way that makes sense?”
From the post above it seems we cannot find a way to define the term objectively (or in a way that makes sense). So if you can’t define it...........does it really *mean* anything? Can it really exist?
Quoting Ron’s defintion: “"that level of service ordinarily provided by other competent members of our profession, providing similar services in the same locale and under the same or
similar circumstances"
It seems Ron’s definition could just as well read: “Doing it the same way everyone else does around here”. Where is the concrete definition of actually “how to do it”? If someone can point to the concrete definition of “how to do it”.....then you have a standard of care. I’m not trying to attack Ron’s definition.....I’m just trying to make a point.
I’ve noticed on my state’s A/E Examiners page under “Our Mission”: states “...establish a standard of care...” Seems to me the board has their work cut out for them. Just another way for government to argue and waste money over literally ”nothing”.
From the post above it seems we cannot find a way to define the term objectively (or in a way that makes sense). So if you can’t define it...........does it really *mean* anything? Can it really exist?
Quoting Ron’s defintion: “"that level of service ordinarily provided by other competent members of our profession, providing similar services in the same locale and under the same or
similar circumstances"
It seems Ron’s definition could just as well read: “Doing it the same way everyone else does around here”. Where is the concrete definition of actually “how to do it”? If someone can point to the concrete definition of “how to do it”.....then you have a standard of care. I’m not trying to attack Ron’s definition.....I’m just trying to make a point.
I’ve noticed on my state’s A/E Examiners page under “Our Mission”: states “...establish a standard of care...” Seems to me the board has their work cut out for them. Just another way for government to argue and waste money over literally ”nothing”.
Standard of Care - Duty of Care, both seems to be whatever the judge/jury decides after you are in legal proceedings.
Hence, the current situation with product liability in the US, where I have to remove a warning sticker on the over door of my new stove/range that states "Warning: Sitting or standing on the oven door may cause the range to tip over."
Duh.
"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater."
Albert Einstein
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
Hence, the current situation with product liability in the US, where I have to remove a warning sticker on the over door of my new stove/range that states "Warning: Sitting or standing on the oven door may cause the range to tip over."
Duh.
"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater."
Albert Einstein
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
- Thread starter
- #25
I agree with you Senseless.... the term carries so much ambiguity with it... does it really exist at all? Courts would have you believe so. Having given a lot of thought to the topic... I believe it is up to the states to define a "standard of care" that can be applied to the profession... but at different levels. And have engineers licensed at those levels to subject them to certain standards of care. Thus, when a client retains an engineer, with a certain level of experience licensed by the state, then he or she knows what they're buying... to some degree. This points to the majority of problems anyway... i.e. owners and clients retaining engineering services... expecting a certain level of compentency, which often includes "perfection" from the consultant just because the consultant's name is followed by "P.E.", and then when things go bad... the client gets pissed off because God didn't design the project. So why do we persist being in such a profession? Ahhh... another topic for another thread.
And for Ron... were you referring to me when you said you couldn't believe a person hadn't heard of standard of care? If so... please reread my thread... contains no such verbage. Rather... I understand the ambiguity of the term and was searching for input from others... which I have received. Thanx to all!!
And for Ron... were you referring to me when you said you couldn't believe a person hadn't heard of standard of care? If so... please reread my thread... contains no such verbage. Rather... I understand the ambiguity of the term and was searching for input from others... which I have received. Thanx to all!!
I'm a Mech Eng who has made the jump to lawschool.
What is interesting (and what I initially had a hard time with) is that in law, being held to the standard of another "reasonable engineer" is considered an "objective" test. (Whereas, to my engineering-trained mind, and to most of yours by the looks of it, this is about as subjective as it gets.)
If it's outside the experience of the layman, whatever your experts testify to, and the judge or jury accepts will become your "standard of care".
TreesMan, as I alluded to earlier, in engineering we really have one level of competency and a grey-area for better qualified individuals. Whereas in medicine, for example, they have discrete levels of specialty. Are you suggesting we should have certain "specialist" designations above-and-beyond the professional engineering designation? Interesting thought...
What is interesting (and what I initially had a hard time with) is that in law, being held to the standard of another "reasonable engineer" is considered an "objective" test. (Whereas, to my engineering-trained mind, and to most of yours by the looks of it, this is about as subjective as it gets.)
If it's outside the experience of the layman, whatever your experts testify to, and the judge or jury accepts will become your "standard of care".
TreesMan, as I alluded to earlier, in engineering we really have one level of competency and a grey-area for better qualified individuals. Whereas in medicine, for example, they have discrete levels of specialty. Are you suggesting we should have certain "specialist" designations above-and-beyond the professional engineering designation? Interesting thought...
UWH,
Yup, like I said, the standard/duty of care is what the judge/jury decides. And, it will vary "objectively" each case.
Different level of engineering designation?
More dues to the associations?
Any employer out there willing to pay more salary to the engineers who get the higher designations?
"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater."
Albert Einstein
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
Yup, like I said, the standard/duty of care is what the judge/jury decides. And, it will vary "objectively" each case.
Different level of engineering designation?
More dues to the associations?
Any employer out there willing to pay more salary to the engineers who get the higher designations?
"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater."
Albert Einstein
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
Treesman....I wasn't referring to you or anyone specifically, just that there were several posts indicating that they didn't know a Standard of Care existed or didn't believe that one existed or could exist for that matter.
A STANDARD OF CARE DOES EXIST FOR ENGINEERS!!!!It's used daily and the courts know about it. It is not what the courts, judges, or lawyers decide it should be....it is the summary of performance practices used by your own profession on a daily basis....in short, we define our own standard of care by the similarity of competent practices among and between us and our colleagues.
The "working definition" I gave before is a generic form of the standard of care of engineers, defensible in court, and commonly accepted as a contract term.
Please understand...if you don't know what your standard of care is, you might be routinely violating it which puts you and your firm at risk. There have been numerous lawsuits where it was determined that the engineer did not meet the standard of care, which leads to the next allegation...negligence. If it can be proven that you violated the established standard of care, then they have essentially proven negligent practice, which will then get you lots of lost money and licensing problems
Senselessticker....you are somewhat right in your simplification of the definition...[It seems Ron’s definition could just as well read: “Doing it the same way everyone else does around here”.]...except that the standard of care has little to do with "How" you do something, just that you are using the same ordinary care that other competent engineers practicing under the same or similar conditions would use in your area. While it seems subtle, it is VERY important in the engineering community to meet the standard of care and be very careful not to either exceed it or to undershoot it.
If you've ever taken a professional liability course or seminar, you've probably been cautioned not to hold yourself or your firm out as "the best". The reason for this is that when you decide you are "the best", you're holding yourself to a higher standard of care than exists for your competitors, and one that is likely not definable or defensible. If for any reason you fail to exceed the performance of one of those lowly competitors and harm (economic loss, usually) is done to your client or the public, prepare for the lynching.
A STANDARD OF CARE DOES EXIST FOR ENGINEERS!!!!It's used daily and the courts know about it. It is not what the courts, judges, or lawyers decide it should be....it is the summary of performance practices used by your own profession on a daily basis....in short, we define our own standard of care by the similarity of competent practices among and between us and our colleagues.
The "working definition" I gave before is a generic form of the standard of care of engineers, defensible in court, and commonly accepted as a contract term.
Please understand...if you don't know what your standard of care is, you might be routinely violating it which puts you and your firm at risk. There have been numerous lawsuits where it was determined that the engineer did not meet the standard of care, which leads to the next allegation...negligence. If it can be proven that you violated the established standard of care, then they have essentially proven negligent practice, which will then get you lots of lost money and licensing problems
Senselessticker....you are somewhat right in your simplification of the definition...[It seems Ron’s definition could just as well read: “Doing it the same way everyone else does around here”.]...except that the standard of care has little to do with "How" you do something, just that you are using the same ordinary care that other competent engineers practicing under the same or similar conditions would use in your area. While it seems subtle, it is VERY important in the engineering community to meet the standard of care and be very careful not to either exceed it or to undershoot it.
If you've ever taken a professional liability course or seminar, you've probably been cautioned not to hold yourself or your firm out as "the best". The reason for this is that when you decide you are "the best", you're holding yourself to a higher standard of care than exists for your competitors, and one that is likely not definable or defensible. If for any reason you fail to exceed the performance of one of those lowly competitors and harm (economic loss, usually) is done to your client or the public, prepare for the lynching.
Ron said:
So, how do I get my "above average" performance review if the courts want me to neither exceed or undershoot the standard of care (standard of work)?
"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater."
Albert Einstein
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
Ashereng....performance usually has to do with client satisfaction or satisfaction of your supervisor....not the standard of care. You can still achieve the standard of care but provide poor performance for your client....such as a great engineering job, but 6 months late in getting it there!
In that case, you would have little liability but you probably wouldn't get a very nice performance review!
In that case, you would have little liability but you probably wouldn't get a very nice performance review!
Ron,
I find a lot of times that performance has nothing to do with client satisfaction or satisfaction of your supervisor.
I have done an outstanding job for my client once, he was happy, on budget and on schedule. My supervisor hated the work I did.
I have also done an outstanding job for my company. My supervisor loved the work I did. The client took his business to our direct competitor.
"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater."
Albert Einstein
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
I find a lot of times that performance has nothing to do with client satisfaction or satisfaction of your supervisor.
I have done an outstanding job for my client once, he was happy, on budget and on schedule. My supervisor hated the work I did.
I have also done an outstanding job for my company. My supervisor loved the work I did. The client took his business to our direct competitor.
"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater."
Albert Einstein
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
Ashereng...that's true. I've seen those conditions as well. Unfortunate but true.
As for the standard of care though, that is a contractual liability issue and has to do with confining oneself the accepted practices of the profession, given the constraints of locality and similarity of practice/service conditions. Does that inhibit innovation? Sometimes. But knowing when to take on the liability of innovation and when to follow the accepted practices of the profession is a judgment call and you have to be willing to take the consequences if you're wrong.
Further, I see that your practice is in the Petroleum area. Though I'm not that familiar with your practice, I believe it would be correct to state that your services are probably not offered to the general public and that the general public has no direct access, use, or benefit from your direct services (though it is likely that the public benefits indirectly from your direct services). I don't know if your are licensed or if your services require licensing, though I know that there is licensing for Petroleum Engineers in some states; however, in areas where one is licensed to practice engineering services that are offered to the general public (whether commercial services or otherwise), the issues of liability, standard of care, and protection of the health, safety, and welfare of the public are paramount.
As for the standard of care though, that is a contractual liability issue and has to do with confining oneself the accepted practices of the profession, given the constraints of locality and similarity of practice/service conditions. Does that inhibit innovation? Sometimes. But knowing when to take on the liability of innovation and when to follow the accepted practices of the profession is a judgment call and you have to be willing to take the consequences if you're wrong.
Further, I see that your practice is in the Petroleum area. Though I'm not that familiar with your practice, I believe it would be correct to state that your services are probably not offered to the general public and that the general public has no direct access, use, or benefit from your direct services (though it is likely that the public benefits indirectly from your direct services). I don't know if your are licensed or if your services require licensing, though I know that there is licensing for Petroleum Engineers in some states; however, in areas where one is licensed to practice engineering services that are offered to the general public (whether commercial services or otherwise), the issues of liability, standard of care, and protection of the health, safety, and welfare of the public are paramount.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question