Tort Law and Negligence Liability
Elements of negligence
A claimant must prove a duty of care, breach of the standard of a reasonable competent engineer, causation and damage that is not too remote. Engineers owe duties to clients under contract and, where foreseeability and proximity are established, to others such as purchasers, users and public authorities. The standard is not perfection; it is the skill and care reasonably expected of an ordinarily competent practitioner in that discipline at the time.
Professional negligence specifics
- Design, specification, supervision and certification can each be negligent.
- Reliance on specialist reports is reasonable only if you check consistency and scope; blind reliance is not.
- Contributory negligence can reduce damages.
- Liability may be concurrent in contract and tort; limitation periods differ, so check the Limitation Act 1953.
- Pure economic loss is recoverable only in limited circumstances; physical damage and personal injury are more straightforward.
Worked example
An engineer designs a retaining wall using a soil report that warns of high groundwater. He ignores the warning and omits drainage. The wall cracks and a neighbouring car park subsides. Duty is owed to the client and foreseeable neighbouring owners. Breach: a competent engineer would have followed the report. Causation: the omission caused the failure. Damage: repair and subsidence losses. The engineer's claim that the contractor built it fails if the design itself was defective.
Traps
- Thinking negligence requires an intention to harm.
- Assuming a signed client instruction excuses an unsafe design.
- Confusing the standard of care with strict liability.
- Overlooking limitation dates and contribution claims.
- Treating a specialist report as a substitute for engineering judgement.