The majority of times, the owner will not pay for the architect to
     monitor construction; therefore he (she?) is not knowledgeable about
     whether the thing was built as designed. So I have to wonder why the
     architect on such a job is sued for design deficiency. Only the
     contractor knows how it was built, not the architect or engineer.

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Cost of investigation,etc.
Author:  "ken follett" <[log in to unmask]> at internet
Date:    8/4/98 9:45 AM


In a message dated 8/4/98 7:38:37 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [log in to unmask]
writes:

<< Ever since Solomon (I believe - or was it Hammurabi?) decided that if a
 building failed, the architect was to be executed -- we've been watching our
 backs.  Do you GCs have to worry to the same extent?  It seems that in any
law
 suits responsibility all points back to the architect. >>

I believe they were architect/builders then and that the legacy of build-well
or die continues for each -- though somewhat different in manifestation. When
building if the built falls down the builder is often killed outright and
there is no recourse to litigation -- such as when a poorly built concrete
structure collapses on the workers. It is law that if a manager of a
craftsperson knowingly puts the craftsperson in danger of death or
dismemberment etc. that they can be held criminably liable as an individual
and without the protection of a corporation -- possibly not the death penalty,
but it can lead to time in jail. But this does not protect the public, or the
client. Interestingly aside, OSHA is meant to protect the worker from the
excess of the employer, or others, and has nothing to do with protecting the
public.

I've come close to being killed a few times on construction projects, which
proximity to the reality of sudden death I think somehow separates the
sensibilities of builders from the design professionals. It was never
intentional on my part, but each time it brings you up short and sharpens your
attitudes. With all due respect, I don't hear stories of near-death studies
from my friends who went to graduate school to study historic preservation. One
favorite topic of conversation with builders is the times they, or some other
sad party, came close to or exceeded the boundary of death. It should be kept
in mind that preservation trades area a subset of the construction industry and
that many of the tensions in HP are conditioned by a larger field of activity
as a result.

I once told a structural engineer that if we did what he proposed it would kill
someone in the doing. I insist that things be designed in a doable manner out
of fear of negative consequences. The next day, without specifically mentioning
that I had said this, our lawyer advised to never tell a design professional
that they were going to kill anyone. I have since refrained from making these
statements, but it does not prevent me from being wary. As to killing off the
public, as much as architects get the blame, so do builders.

][<en Follett