Measuring Structural Engineers' Understanding of the ``Standard of Care''

Recent court decisions have created case law concerning the admissibility of expert testimony. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) interpreted the Federal Rules of Evidence concerning scientific testimony. A March 23, 1999 U. S. Supreme Court decision, Kuhmo Tire Company, Ltd., et al., v. Patrick Carmichael, 526 U.S. (1999) deals with the admissibility of technical expert testimony. In an amicus curiae brief to the Supreme Court filed in the Kuhmo case, the National Academy of Engineering wrote, "Expert testimony in engineering, just like expert testimony in the sciences, should be admitted only if the testimony is found to have a reliable basis in the knowledge and experience of the engineering discipline. Testimony that is not rooted in such knowledge and experience is at best useless, and at worst misleading to the trier of fact." As part of the background for expert testimony regarding the duty of care of structural engineers, an expert may need an awareness of the knowledge and experience currently practicing structural engineers possess, including their understanding of the standard of care. This paper examines the understanding among practicing structural engineers of their duty of care as professionals. A pilot study designed to assess this understanding is described, and the evaluation tool, a survey questionnaire, is presented. The results of the pilot study are summarized. The derivation and design of a survey sample for a larger study of the issue are presented, including justification of the sample size and treatment of special sampling concerns.