首页> 外文期刊>Consulting-specifying engineer >Shackled by liability to third parties
【24h】

Shackled by liability to third parties

机译:受制于对第三方的责任

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

Engineers find themselves in situations where reliance by third parties could be foreseeable with some frequency. In Craig v. Everett M. Brooks Co.~2, a Massachusetts court allowed a contractor to recover against a civil engineer. The engineer had made a mistake in preparing plans and laying out stakes for a road. As a result, the contractor had to rebuild two catch basins and relocate a road by eight feet. The court held the engineer liable because the contractor was reasonable in relying on the engineer's plans and specifications. The court said the engineer should have foreseen that reliance. The court allowed recovery because both the contractor and the engineer were under contract with the same owner, and the contractor's contract contemplated that the contractor would rely on the engineer's services. The court noted that the defendant engineer knew the only possible plaintiff and the extent of his reliance. In addition, damages were not remote. Under those circumstances, the court felt that imposing liability in the absence of a contractual relationship was reasonable.
机译:工程师发现自己处于可以预见第三方依赖的频率。在Craig v. Everett M. Brooks Co.~2一案中,马萨诸塞州一家法院允许承包商向一名土木工程师追偿。工程师在为道路准备计划和布置木桩时犯了一个错误。因此,承包商不得不重建两个集水池,并将道路重新定位八英尺。法院判定工程师负有责任,因为承包商合理地依赖工程师的计划和规格。法院表示,工程师应该预见到这种依赖。法院准许追偿,因为承包商和工程师都与同一业主签订了合同,而且承包商的合同规定承包商将依赖工程师的服务。法院指出,被告工程师知道唯一可能的原告及其依赖程度。此外,损失并不遥远。在这种情况下,法院认为,在没有合同关系的情况下施加责任是合理的。

著录项

获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号