Roof Collapse at the Factory Extension
A registered PE designed a steel roof truss for a factory extension in Shah Alam. The design used S355 steel. During construction, the contractor substituted S275 sections for the bottom chords without notifying the PE. The PE's site engineer visited weekly but did not inspect the shop drawings or the delivered steel; the contractor's site supervisor ignored a visible 12 mm gap at a critical connection. During a storm, the roof collapsed, injuring two workers, one permanently disabled, and destroying RM1.8 million of machinery. The PE's calculations are later found to be correct, but the contract required the PE to review shop drawings and issue a 'no substitution' instruction. The injured workers were not wearing harnesses, although the contractor had provided them. The workers sue the PE, contractor and supervisor.
1. Discuss the duty of care and standard of care of the PE, contractor and site supervisor. Who is likely liable and why?
Read the worked answer
Design correctness does not exhaust the PE's duty. The PE owes a duty to exercise reasonable skill and care in the design and in the services he contracted to provide. Here the calculations were correct, but the contract required him to review shop drawings and issue a no-substitution instruction. If a reasonable engineer in his position would have caught the S275 substitution, the failure is negligent. The contractor, however, had the primary obligation to build to the specification and not to substitute without approval. The substitution is a clear breach. The site supervisor's failure to act on a visible 12 mm gap is also negligent and may be a cause of the collapse. The workers' lack of harnesses does not break the chain of causation; it may reduce damages for contributory negligence. The PE is unlikely to be liable for the full loss if the contractor's substitution was the dominant cause, but he may contribute. The court will apportion responsibility according to causation and blameworthiness.
2. How should the court approach contributory negligence and the workers' claim? What damages heads arise?
Read the worked answer
Contributory negligence is assessed by apportionment, not a complete defence. Under the Civil Law Act 1956, the court can reduce damages by the claimant's share of responsibility. The workers were provided with harnesses but did not wear them. That is a failure to take reasonable care for their own safety. However, the employer and contractor also had a duty to enforce PPE use and provide a safe system of work. A reduction of perhaps 15-30% is plausible, depending on evidence; the exact percentage is fact-specific. The injured workers can claim general damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity, loss of earning capacity, and special damages for medical expenses and lost wages. If one worker is permanently disabled, future loss of earnings and care costs may be claimed. The factory owner's RM1.8 million machinery loss is a separate economic loss claim, likely against the contractor and possibly the PE if negligence is proved. The workers cannot recover the machinery loss.
3. What limitation issues and risk-management lessons arise for the PE?
Read the worked answer
Limitation and risk management. A tort claim generally must be brought within six years of the cause of action under the Limitation Act 1953; contractual claims also generally have six years. Personal injury claims require careful checking because the accrual date and any special rules can be contentious. The PE should notify his professional indemnity insurer immediately, preserve all design files, shop drawing transmittals, site reports and emails, and avoid informal admissions. The lessons are practical: define the scope of shop drawing review in writing; use a formal substitution and materials approval process; require the contractor to submit mill certificates; record site instructions; and ensure weekly visits include critical connections. The PE should also review whether his fee covered the review he was contractually required to perform. If he was under-resourced, that is not a defence.