From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,bf72ca9e8a6b3cf X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "Robert I. Eachus" Subject: Engineering Liability (was Re: Software Engineering in Florida) Date: 1999/11/12 Message-ID: <382C56D4.A8EADF56@mitre.org>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 547831646 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <1e0rgtb.6j187t1hibcsaN@[209.132.126.64]> <3828ACA7.7B376431@mitre.org> X-Accept-Language: en Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.mitre.org X-Trace: top.mitre.org 942429548 2334 129.83.41.77 (12 Nov 1999 17:59:08 GMT) Organization: The MITRE Corporation Mime-Version: 1.0 NNTP-Posting-Date: 12 Nov 1999 17:59:08 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-11-12T17:59:08+00:00 List-Id: 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...