final-report-of-the-advisory-committee-on-falsework-bragg-report - Flipbook - Page 75
which was later to be found to be defective. Similarly
in the case of Dutton v Bognor Regis Urban District
Council, a council surveyor-was successfully sued for
negligence when foundations, which he had approved
for a bungalow, settled several years later. The case of
Greaves & Co (Contractors) Ltd, v Baynham, Meikle
and Partners (QBD All England, 12 November 1974)
showed that consulting structural engineers could be
held liable for a failure to take account in their design
of the effect of vibration caused by fork lift trucks.
Alternatively the professional may deliberately not
insure ( or conceal the fact of his insurance) to give the
impression that he is a "man of straw" who is not worth
suing.
We believe that professional men mustacceptthatthey
will be held responsible for exercising proper professional skills in protecting people at work and the
public. They may be sued and can be liable for compensation if it can be proved that they were negligent.
Most professionals are already conscientious in their
work, for the sake of their reputations and future employment if for no other reason. The 'over-kill' effect
of devastating damages does not make them more
careful than they already are but could easily act as
a deterrent to future recruits to the profession.
The basic problem is that with large interdependent
structures a single error by one man can cause a huge
loss. The liability for damage can then be out of all
proportion to the fee paid for professional advice. At
the same time the number of actions for damages
against professional men has been growing.
In apportioning blame, however, it must be remembered that it is usually easier not to commit an error
than to discover it once it has been made. Even if an
engineer has checked and accepted proposals for
falsework the primary responsibility remains with the
contractor. The contractor must never condone carelessness in his organisation on the grounds that if
errors are made the Engineer is sure to find them.
Summarising then, we believe that safetyisparamount.
Because of their particular knowledge and expertise,
engineers and architects have a duty to examine falsework proposals with professional care. If they do not
do so they cannot escape liability.
The possibility of litigation, however, inevitably raises
the question of insurance which is discussed in the
next section.
Insurance
We must emphasize that we are concerned only with
the question of whether the arrangements for insurance in the UK have any effect on falsework safety.
Are there any changes which could improve safety?
We consider this question under the three headings of
professional indemnity, principal's insurance and insurance company's assessments.
We have received evidence that some professional men
were deterred from giving advice on matters affecting
safety lest they should implicate themselves in any
way in a collapse and become liable for damages.
Although insurance against claims is possible, the
premiums are high. The insurer may make conditions
which restrain the insured from giving any advice for
which he is not contractually liable even though his
professional duty of care would prompt otherwise.
76
we· realise that the whole question of compensation
and liability for personal injury is being considered by
the Royal Commission set up under the Chairmanship
of Lord Pearson. We therefore confine ourselves to
the comment that safety is not improved in a situation
where those most able to give help are deterred from
doing so by the risk of incurring penalties far greater
than their earnings.
We have considered whether a possible answer to the
problem of personal liability would be job insurance.
In this system the work of all parties is covered by a
single policy insuring against all third party risks. We
were told that this system is disliked for two reasons.
A single insurer finds it difficult to assess the overall
risk when so many different sub-contractors and other
parties are involved. By the same token a contractor
who has been associated with an unreliable subcontractor on one job finds it difficult to get an
economical premium on the next even though he has
changed his sub-contractor.
This raises the point that individual insurers do try
to match their premiums to their experience with
particular contractors. This is a form of 'no claim
bonus'. In the same way an insurer would ask a large
premium from a contractor who was undertaking a
project outside his previous experience. These direct
effects on contractor's costs are powerful incentives
to safer practice. We believe that such working of the
market forces should be encouraged.
Similarly most insurance companies exclude . from
their material damage policy any claims involving
faults in design, materials or construction. This
arrangement, too, appears to operate favourably as
an inducement to a contractor to organise his operation
so that such faults are avoided.
