Minimizing Liability for Construction Accidents through Good Contracting
Publication: Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice
Volume 130, Issue 4
Abstract
A serious injury or death of an employee or member of the public on a construction site poses a considerable risk to the construction industry professional. Whether resulting from an unsafe condition on the site or from the injured party’s own negligence, a lawsuit seeking a large award is likely to follow. While an architect or engineer with general inspection responsibilities over a construction project does not normally owe a duty of care to the contractor’s employees or the public, he or she may assume such a duty through contractual language or by exercising control over safety issues. With the unpredictability of juries and the ready availability of experts willing to testify that a construction industry professional was at fault, careful contract drafting becomes essential for protecting an organization and shifting the responsibility for site safety to those best able to control the risk. The design professional will wish to ensure that the contractor is fully responsible for site safety. The contractor, on the other hand, must be on guard against the assumption of responsibilities beyond that normally expected in the industry.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Endnotes
1.
O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11.
2.
219 Ga.App. 431, 435; 465 S.E.2d 726 (1995).
3.
Id. at 431.
4.
5.
Id. at 433–34.
6.
Id. at 434.
7.
8.
Id. at 434–435.
9.
Id. at 435 (quoting Perryman v. Rosenbaum, 205 Ga.App. 784, 788, 423 S.E.2d 673 (1993).
10.
See Id.
11.
236 Ga.App. 215, 511 S.E.2d 581 (1999).
12.
Id. at 216.
13.
Id. at 217.
14.
15.
Id. (citing National Foundation Co., 219 Ga.App. at 435); but cf. Millar Elevator Svc. Co. v. O’Shields, 222 Ga.App. 456, 457 n.1, 475 S.E. 2d 188 (1996) (expert testimony as to industry practice is admissible on the question of whether there has been compliance with a duty that the law imposes).
16.
The AIA A201, 1987 ed. contains similar language in Article 4.2.3.The Architect will not have control over or charge of and will not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in a connection with the Work, since these are solely the Contractor’s responsibility as provided in Paragraph 3.3. The Architect will not be responsible for the Contractor’s failure to carry out the Work in accordance with the Contract Documents. The Architect will not have control over or charge of and will not be responsible for acts or omissions of the Contractor, Subcontractors, or their agents or employees, or of any other persons performing portions of the Work.The Engineers Joint Contract Documents Committee (EJCDC) Standard General Conditions (EJCDC No. 1910-8 (1996 ed.) similarly provides in 6.13:6.13 Safety and Protection A. CONTRACTOR shall be solely responsible for initiating, maintaining and supervising all safety precautions and programs in connection with the Work. CONTRACTOR shall take all necessary precautions for the safety of, and shall provide the necessary protection to prevent damage, injury or loss to:1: all persons on the Site or who may be affected by the Work; 2. all the Work and materials and equipment to be incorporated therein, whether in storage on or off the Site; and3. other property at the Site or adjacent thereto, including trees, shrubs, lawns, walks, pavements, roadways, structures, utilities, and Underground Facilities not designated for removal, relocation, or replacement in the course of construction. B. CONTRACTOR shall comply with all applicable Laws and Regulations relating to the safety of persons or property, or to the protection of persons or property from damage, injury, or loss; and shall erect and maintain all necessary safeguards for such safety and protection. CONTRACTOR shall notify owners of adjacent property and of Underground Facilities and other utility owners when prosecution of the Work may affect them, and shall cooperate with them in the protection, removal, relocation, and replacement of their property. All damage, injury, or loss to any property referred to in paragraph 6.13.A.2 or 6.13.A.3 caused, directly or indirectly, in whole or in party, by CONTRACTOR (except damage or loss attributable to the fault of Drawings or Specifications or to the acts or omissions of OWNER or ENGINEER or ENGINEER’s Consultant, or anyone employed by any of them, or anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable, and not attributable, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, to the fault or negligence of CONTRACTOR or any Subcontractor, Supplier, or other individual or entity directly or indirectly employed by any of them). CONTRACTOR’s duties and responsibilities for safety and for protection of the Work shall continue until such time as all the Work is completed and ENGINEER has issued a notice to OWNER and CONTRACTOR in accordance with paragraph 14.07.B that the Work is acceptable (except as otherwise expressly provided in connection with Substantial Completion).
17.
This provision is not included in the 1987 edition of the AIA A201 general provisions.
18.
AIA A201, 1987 Ed., Article 10.1.1 EJCD 6.17, E.2 Shop Drawings and Samples also provides: 2. Engineer’s review and approval will not extend to means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures of construction (except where a particular means, method, technique, sequence, or procedure of construction is specifically and expressly called for by the Contract Documents) or to safety precautions or programs incident thereto. The review and approval of a separate item as such will not indicate approval of the assembly in which the item functions.
19.
AIA A201, 1987 Ed., Article 10.2.1; AIA A201, 1997 Ed., Article 10.2.1.
20.
See e.g. Peck v. Horracks Engineers, Inc., 106 F.3d 949, 954 ( Cir. 1997) (acknowledging that holding design professional liable for site safety is minority rule and noting that the AIA A201 contract form was modified specifically to avoid liability for employee and public safety); Fisher v. M. Spinelli Sons, Co., 1999 WL 165674 (Mass. Super. 1999) (granting summary judgment to Architects on similar term to the AIA A201 general provisions); Burns v. Black & Veatch Architects, Inc., 854 S.W.2d 450, 454 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993) (granting summary judgment to architect firm with standard 1987 AIA A201 terms and conditions).
21.
Peck, 106 F. 3d at 952.
22.
23.
Id. at 954.
24.
642 N.E.2d 711, 712 (Ill. Ct. App. 1993).
25.
Id. at 713.
26.
Id. at 714.
27.
Id. at 714–715.
28.
See Peck, 106 F.3d at 955.
29.
Id.; see also Ivanov, 642 N.E.2d at 714–715.
30.
Hanna v. Huer, Johnson, Neel, Rivers & Webb, 662 P.2d 243, 252-53 (Kan. 1983).
31.
Id. at 252.
32.
Id. at 252-253 (emphasis in original).
33.
Id. at 253. The court, however, did indicate that actual knowledge of an unsafe condition on the part of the architect would create a duty of care. Id.
34.
29 U.S.C. § 651, et seq. (2002).
35.
See CH2M Hill Central, Inc., 1997 OSAHRC Lexis 34 (No. 89-1712, April 21, 1997).
36.
CH2M Hill, Inc. v. Herman, 192 F.3d 711, 713 (7th Cir. 1999).
37.
38.
Id. at 714.
39.
Id at 715.
40.
Id. at 713.
41.
Id. at 716; see also 29 U.S.C. § 654(a)(1), 29 U.S.C. § 655; 29 C.F.R. Ct. (1910, 1926).
42.
Id. at 720.
43.
CH2M Hill, Inc., 192 F.3d at 716.
44.
Id. at 719.
45.
Id. at 720.
46.
Id. at 721 (alteration in original).
47.
219 Ga.App. 431.
48.
236 Ga.App. 215.
49.
192 F.3d 711.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
Copyright © 2004 ASCE.
History
Published online: Oct 1, 2004
Published in print: Oct 2004
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.