using open discussion sites like these 1

[msucog]

not sure exactly where this question might go but this seemed like a reasonable spot.

any thoughts on the consequences of using sites like these? for instance, at what point might it become a liability to openly correspond about projects, problems, test methods/procedures, calculations, observations, etc.? in other words, say 5 years down the road, i'm called in to court over a problem with a project...can someone use things i've said over the years on this website against me?

 

[jmw]

That implies that as a visitor to the site you depend on the site owners policing the site properly to ensure that everyone who signs up is a professional engineer.

But, we all know that students do get through the net and post and then we have that great debate about "what is an engineer?"

So, "relatively strict" may be somewhat optimistic or unrealistic.

Did anyone need to submit work references and show proof of qualification to become a member?
No.

I'd suggest it is easier for the owners to police bad manners and double posting than ensure the integrity of the members. Indeed, the owners of the site are clear that they are not competent to adjudicate engineering issues.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[msquared48]

This site is not intended for the dissemination of free engineering services for non-engineers, but only as a discussion group of peers, licensed or unlicensed.

As the information is freely given, take it as such and don't try to make it something it is not. As the engineer asking for the guidance, it is still your professional responsibility to check out the sources cited, if any, and use the information in a professional manner.

And, for the record, contracts and compesnsation DO matter.

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering

 

[CorBlimeyLimey]

...when you sign up for an account, you claim, as a minimum, that you are an engineering professional.

Not exactly (See attached). If the Join Us section at the LH side of the screen is used, there is no mention of any engineering related qualification being required.

Even the main registration page has only an obscure bracketed comment buried amidst form fields and other trivial bracketed comments.

to ensure that everyone who signs up is a professional engineer.

Please repeat after me. It's "engineering professional" not professional engineer".
There is a BIG difference, in both application and liability.

 

[nickelkid]

..can someone use things i've said over the years on this website against me?

I cannot imagine a lawyer trying to discredit someone not using everything they can find to accomplish their task. When a lot of money is on the table things can get really ugly. With that said, I really hope nobody has to go through some of the horror stories I have heard of about engineers on the stand.

 

[jmw]

"engineering professional"
"engineering professional"
"engineering professional"
"engineering professional"
"engineering professional"
....


JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[civilperson]

My liability is limited to the amount of fee that I received for posting on this site.

 

[IRstuff]

You might think so, but Good Samaritan laws were put in place to prevent liability suits in cases where a person helps an injured person with no contract or compensation, but does something to further harm the injured person. Note that in some cases, someone who is untrained in first aid would still be liable if something went wrong.

TTFN

FAQ731-376

 

[msucog]

civilperson, do not believe that philosophy (although i agree that what you said should be true). i would argue that since there's no contract that you're not required to do anything...but if you do give advice, opinions, recommendations (which is what we do on here), could a court find you responsible some how? let's say you do have a contract and you set your liability at $5 or the fee whichever is greater but you elect to charge only $5. the building falls/fails sometime later. the court will through out the unreasonably low $5 limitation and set their own based on the "facts" of the case which could be whatever they feel like is good enough to teach you a lesson and to ease the pain of the person that was harmed (ie. a lot of money).

also, if i'm walking down the street and see an "obviously" unsafe trench with people in there, it's highly possible that i could be sued if i don't "do my professional duty" and inform the people in the trench to get out. i'm wondering if the same rationale could be used for posting on here. even though we are sharing ideas and batting around the engineering principles, i could almost see a sleezebag lawyer trying to discredit or skew the case based on posting on websites like this. i apparently have stumbled upon a real question that is not so easily answered in a straight forward manner.

IS THERE A LAWYER IN THE HOUSE?

 

[civilperson]

msucog,
I have very little hair, but what I have is gray and my thirty years of experience says that over reaching attorneys and their litigious clients are liable to counter-claims and suits. Fear of lawsuits is a poor excuse for non decision making or not expressing an opinion. I have been in court on construction claims six times and never has the award been attributed to bad or poor engineering. Sue me if you dare and I will get rich off of your unreasonable requirement of perfection and 20/20 foresight.

 

[msucog]

i too am gray...been that way half since i was a teen...i like to think/claim it's premature wisdom creeping in.

i would say your experience is not the norm for larger firms. perhaps i'm wrong. i've seen our firm spend hundreds of thousands of dollars defending ourselves over things that was obviously not our problem. but the only other option is to stare our deductible and insurance folks in the face so we are left with no other option. and by the way, the limitation of liability in not necessarily the terms agreed upon in the contract.

i would love to know your secret...

 

[civilperson]

I have no Errors and Omission insurance! I go naked and at each deposition I make sure the opposing counsel knows this fact. Deep pockets is the first rule of civil suits! I do what a reasonable and prudent professional would do, follow the applicable code and ignore the code when it is not pertaining to the design problem.

 

[cedarbluffranch]

I still see how the duty to care is established, unless you somehow establish that you're an expert or experienced in your post. Even still, I don't see you establishing tort liability by posting something on a random internet board.

 

[drawoh]

cedarbluffranch,

"Hi everybody. I am designing a methyl isocyanate tank that will be installed next to a daycare centre and a yard full of cute puppies. What colour should I paint it?"

There is a wide range of possible answers to this one. The one that could leave you open to a lawsuit would be to tell him to go ahead. "It sounds like everything is under control." If you think the poster should not be doing this, you are under no obligation to jump in a car, drive over to his location and physically assault him.

There have been cases where people have OD'ed on drugs online in chat rooms, accidentally, or deliberately. Other people in the "room" contacted authorities, typically, not in time.

JHG

 

[cedarbluffranch]

I'd paint it red. Install it at your convenience.

I don't know anything about methyl isocyanate and I don't think a judge or jury could hold me responsible for saying to go ahead and install it.

How have I established a duty to care? I don't know anything about the chemical and don't care to know anything about it.

 

[CorBlimeyLimey]

In which case you shouldn't be responding to the thread with an answer which will be perceived as being professionally knowledgeable.

 

[TDAA]

I would go with a rainbow theme. That will be nice for the kids to look at.
And per my previous post: You should probably rethink your site for that tank.

Methyl isocyanate (MIC) is an organic compound with the molecular formula C2H3NO, arranged as H3C-N=C=O. Synonyms are isocyanatomethane, methyl carbylamine, and MIC. It was discovered in 1888 as an ester of isocyanic acid. Methyl isocyanate is an intermediate chemical in the production of carbamate pesticides (such as carbaryl, carbofuran, methomyl, and aldicarb). It has also been used in the production of rubbers and adhesives. As a highly toxic and irritating material, it is hazardous to human health, and was involved in the Bhopal disaster which killed nearly 3,800 people initially and approximately 20,000 people in total.

 

[cedarbluffranch]

Of course I shouldn't. That's not being nice, courteous, or proper in our society. But we're not talking about moral or societial obligations. We're talking about is has it been established that I have a legal duty to care and whether that duty has been breached.

While you might hope that I am professional knowledgable, I haven't established myself as a professional and may not even be an engineer or compotent in the advice I'm giving. So I don't see how that constitutes a legal duty to care.

That's the key point in liability - can you establish that I have a duty to care? That'd be a tough argument to make. You can't hold someone liable unless you've first established the duty to care.

 

[drawoh]

...highly toxic and irritating material, it is hazardous to human health, and was involved in the Bhopal disaster...

I was quickly trying to think of something nasty. Actually, very bad things have been done with molasses.

I am sure you are safe if you ignore the question, if you red flag the question, or reply questioning the OP's sanity and competence. The instructions for Eng-Tips state that you should not answer questions unless you are qualified. By answering, you are claiming that you know.

JHG

 

[cedarbluffranch]

You can also think of it this way. In Seattle, we have large homeless population on the streets. When you park your car on the street during the free parking time, and go to pay, a homeless person will run up to you and tell you it's free and you shouldn't pay.

Now, if they're wrong, does that mean you can file a claim in small claims court and require the homeless person to pay your parking ticket? After all, they shouldn't give advice if they don't know what they're talking about.

Or another example is you pick up a hitchiker, and the hitchhiker tells you the speed limit is 65, he saw a sign a while back. Except the speed limit is really 45 and the dude didn't know what he was talking about. You get a ticket, can you tell the officer to give the ticket the hitchhiker since he advised you and told you wrong information?

I don't think you'd get very far in either of these cases because it's hard to establish a duty to care. These are random strangers in your life rather than experts or people who have legal obligation to give you good advice.

Now, instead of a homeless person say it was the parking enforcement official who told you that you didn't have to pay parking. This person has a duty to care because that is her job, and she is wearing a uniform that gives you confidence in her ability, and she is driving a city vehicle. That establishes a duty to care.

So I don't think most people have established a duty to care on the information they provide. When they start saying they are a professional engineer licensed in Nebraska, or they work as a maintenance engineer at Boeing, or any of a number of different cases, they may start to establish some duty to care. But I sitll think it'd be a tough case to make.

Make sense?

 

[jmw]

There is no point in suing anyone with no money.
Of course, the lawyers will make their money from one or other party but I wonder what would make it worth tracking you down and suing you?

Of all the people in this internet age who should be hunted out and shot down like a dog, I suspect we are far down the list.

So, while it is something to think about, it shouldn't necessarily affect our posts as we should be posting responsibly to begin with and the real time to worry is when the first case arises or the authorities show signs that there is something to be concerned about and that that concern is likely to lead to some kind of action.

So, do we have any real signs that these fora are considered as a serious litigation potential issue?

I would hazard a guess (should I emphasise "guess"?) that professional indemnity insurance may not be valid for positing in these fora irrespective of the degree of cover you have in your work place.



JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com