Week 05

LECTURE#10
LIABILITY IN ENGINEERING
Although engineers and their employers might try to excuse failure to provide safety and quality by
pointing out that they have met existing regulatory standards, it is evident that the courts will not
necessarily agree. The standard of care in tort law (which is concerned with wrongful injury) is not
restricted to regulatory standards. The expectation is that engineers will meet the standard of care as
expressed in Coombs v. Beede:
The responsibility resting on an architect is essentially the same as that which rests upon the lawyer to his
client, or upon the physician to his patient, or which rests upon anyone to another where such person
pretends to possess some special skill and ability in some special employment, and offers his services to
the public on account of his fitness to act in the line of business for which he may be employed. The
undertaking of an architect implies that he possesses skill and ability, including taste, sufficient enough to
enable him to perform the required services at least ordinarily and reasonably well; and that he will
exercise and apply, in the given case, his skill and ability, his judgment and taste reasonably and without
neglect.
As Joshua B. Kardon points out, this standard does not hold that all failure to provide satisfying services
is wrongful injury. However, it does insist that the services provide evidence that reasonable care was
taken. What counts as reasonable care is a function of both what the public can reasonably expect and
what experienced, competent engineers regard as acceptable practice. Given the desirability of innovative
engineering design, it is unrealistic for the public to regard all failures and mishaps to be culpable; at the
same time, it is incumbent on engineers to do their best to anticipate and avoid failures and mishaps.
It should also be noted that Coombs v. Beede does not say that professionals need only conform to the
established standards and practices of their field of expertise. Those standards and practices may be in a
state of change, and they may not be able to keep pace with advancing knowledge of risks in particular
areas. Furthermore, as many liability cases have shown, reasonable people often disagree about precisely
what those standards and practices should be taken to be. A practical way of examining moral
responsibility is to consider the related concept of legal liability for causing harm. Legal liability in many
ways parallels moral responsibility, although there are important differences. To be legally liable for
causing harm is to warrant punishment for, or to be obligated to make restitution for, harms.
Liability for harm ordinarily implies that the person caused the harm, but it also implies something about
the conditions under which the harm was caused. These conditions are ordinarily ‘‘mental’’ in nature and
can involve such things as malicious intent, recklessness, and negligence. Let us discuss these concepts of
liability and moral responsibility for harm in more detail, noting that each connotes a weaker sense of
liability than the other. We shall also see that, although the concept of causing harm is present, the notions
of liability and responsibility are the focus of attention.
▪ First, a person can intentionally or knowingly and deliberately cause harm. If I stab you in the
back in order to take your money, I am both morally responsible and legally liable for your death.
The causal component in this case is killing you, and the mental component is intending to do you
serious harm.
 ▪ Second, a person can recklessly cause harm by not aiming to cause harm but by being aware that
harm is likely to result. If I recklessly cause you harm, the causal factor is present, so I am
responsible for your harm. In reckless behavior, although there is not an intent to harm, there is an
intent to engage in behavior that is known to place others at risk of harm. Furthermore, the person
may have what we could call a reckless attitude, in which the well-being of others, and perhaps
even of himself, is not uppermost in his mind. The reckless attitude may cause harm, as in the
case of a person who drives twice the speed limit and causes an accident. He may not intend to do
harm or even to cause an accident, but he does intend to drive fast, and he may not be thinking
about his own safety or that of others. If his reckless action causes harm, then he is responsible
for the harm and should be held legally liable for it.
▪ Third, a still weaker kind of legal liability and moral responsibility is usually associated with
negligently causing harm. Unlike recklessness, where an element of deliberateness or intent is
involved (such as a decision to drive fast), and the negligent behavior of the person may simply
overlook something or not even be aware of the factors that could cause harm.

Furthermore, there may not be any direct causal component. The person is responsible because she has
failed to exercise due care, which is the care that would be expected of a reasonable person in the
circumstances. In law, a successful charge of negligence must meet four conditions:
1. A legal obligation to conform to certain standards of conduct is present.
2. The person accused of negligence fails to conform to the standards.
3. There is a reasonably close causal connection between the conduct and the resulting harm.
4. Actual loss or damage to the interests of another results.
These four elements are also present in moral responsibility, except that in the first condition, we must
substitute ‘‘moral obligation’’ for ‘‘legal obligation.’’ Professions such as engineering have recognized
standards of professional practice, with regard to both technical and ethical practice. Professional
negligence, therefore, is the failure to perform duties that professionals have implicitly or explicitly
assumed by virtue of being professionals. If an engineer does not exercise standard care, according to the
recognized standards of his or her profession, and is therefore negligent, then he or she can be held
responsible for the harm done.
One concept of legal liability has no exact parallel in moral responsibility. In some areas of the law, there
is strict liability for harms caused; there is no attribution of fault or blame, but there is a legal
responsibility to provide compensation, make repairs, or the like. Strict liability is directed at corporations
rather than individual engineers within the organization. However, insofar as they have a duty to be
faithful and loyal employees, and perhaps even as a matter of specifically assigned duties, engineers can
have responsibilities to their employer to help minimize the likelihood that strict liability will be imposed
on the organization. So even strict liability, at the corporate level have moral implications for individual
engineers. A common complaint is that court determinations, particularly those involving juries, are often
excessive. However valid this complaint may be, two points should not be lost.
▪ First, the fact that these determinations are made, however fair or unfair they may be, has
important implications for engineers. As consultants who are themselves subject to liability, they
have self-interested reasons for striving to take the standard of care seriously. As corporate
 employees, they have a responsibility to be concerned about areas of corporate liability that
involve their expertise.
▪ Second, the standard of care has a moral basis, regardless of how it plays out in courts of law.
From a moral standpoint, intentionally, negligently, or recklessly causing harm to others is to fail
to exercise reasonable care. What, if any, legal redress is due is another matter.

Although the standard of care plays a prominent role in law, it is important to realize that it reflects a
broader notion of moral responsibility as well. Dwelling on its role in law alone may suggest to some a
more calculative, ‘‘legalistic’’ consideration of reasonable care. In calculating the case for or against
making a full effort to meet the standard of care, the cost of doing so can be weighed against the chances
of facing a tort claim. This involves estimating the likelihood that harm will actually occur—and, if it
does, that anyone will take it to court (and that they will be successful). Liability insurance is already an
expense, and those whose aim is simply to maximize gains and minimize overall costs might calculate
that a less than full commitment to the standard of care is worth the risk. From this perspective, care is not
so much a matter of reasonable care as it is taking care not to get caught.