Page 152 - Forensic Structural Engineering Handbook

CHAPTER 4

STANDARD OF CARE

Joshua B. Kardon, Ph.D., S.E.

INTRODUCTION 4.1
SOURCE OF THE DUTY OF CARE 4.2
Warranties 4.3
Strict Liability 4.4
Negligence perse 4.4
ROLE OF THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER 4.5
Structural Engineering Design 4.5
Forensic Structural Engineering 4.5
STANDARD OF CARE 4.6
Uncertainty 4.6
Error 4.7
Identifying Error 4.8
Testifying as to the Standard of Care 4.9
Contractor’s “Standard of Care” 4.9
CASE STUDIES 4.10
Steel-Frame Design 4.10
Retaining Wall Design 4.10
Foundation Design 4.11
Unreinforced Masonry Wall Collapse 4.11
Tacoma Narrows Bridge Collapse 4.12
Hyatt Regency Kansas City Walkway Collapse 4.12
CitiCorp Building, New York 4.12
Lighting Tower Collapse 4.13
Bridge Collapse and the Duty to Warn 4.13
REFERENCES 4.14

INTRODUCTION

Often in the course of the investigation or resolution of disputes involving construction
defects or failures of structures, the performance of a structural engineer is called into ques-
tion. The question may be one of performance under the contract for the engineer’s services,
or for any number of torts. The engineer could be accused of professional negligence, which
is generally defined as the failure of the engineer to possess and use the skill of a normally
competent practitioner. If that is the case, there is a need for expert testimony in order to do
two things: (1) define what the skill possessed by normally competent practitioners is, and
(2) come to an opinion as to whether the defendant structural engineer conformed to that level.
These are “standard of care” questions. Why are structural engineers compared with such a
standard? What is care? How does the forensic structural engineer know what it is?

4.1