Engineering Liability (was Re: Software Engineering in Florida)

["Robert I. Eachus" <eachus@mitre.org>]

Richard Kenner wrote:
 
> This seems to cover a situation, say, wher a company is providing some
> product, like a toaster, and hires an electrical engineer to help
> design them.

   Correct.  If the company is not involved in the provision of
engineering services as defined by this section, but produces products,
then any engineers working on those products need not be licensed.

>  This paragraph seems to imply that person need not be
> a registered engineer, but I don't see why that should be the case.

   Let me give you an example of why this is.  Say that you work for
Acme Bolt Company, and you are asked to design some new bolts.  (More
often, you are developing a new process for creating standard bolts.)  A
skyscraper is built by Bravo Construction using your bolts, and it
collapses during construction due to a severe storm.  You--and Acme Bolt
company--are not liable.  The engineer who signed off on the engineering
drawings may be, and if he didn't test the bolts to insure that they met
his requirements, he may be guilty of negligence.

   On the other hand, say that the engineer did test the original bolts,
and Acme Bolt switched during construction to providing the new bolts
knowing that they were unsuitable for this use.  Now Acme Bolt is
liable, under the implied warranty of merchantability, and is liable for
consequential damages.  You, however, again are not liable as long as
you did not conceal information from Acme Bolt.  (For example, you
tested the bolts and found that the breaking stress was 5% lower than
the previous design.  Unless you deliberately concealed this information
from your employer, you have no liability, and no responsibility to tell
Bravo Construction.)

   I have been involved in a couple of legal cases substantially similar
to the latter.  The purchase orders from Bravo (in the example above)
specified the breaking stress, and Acme Bolt switched products to one
that did not meet the spec in the middle of a large order.  Both
suppliers settled quickly once it turned out in depositions that the
implied warranty law applied.  There is no way to void or limit such an
implied warranty that the product is suitable for the intended use.  And
the vendor is liable for consequential damages, including those that
have not yet been incurred.  In other words, whether they win or lose
the lawsuit, they are still potentially liable for unlimited damages. 
Under those circumstances, any publicly traded company is forced to
settle before their next financial statement is issued.

   Remember the Pentium divide bug?  Once it was shown that Intel knew
about the bug and still shipped chips containing it, I can imagine their
lawyers and accountants making it clear in no uncertain terms, that they
had to get those chips out of circulation now! 
 
-- 

                                        Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...