Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
- Homepage »
- Torts »
- Negligence
33. In that action, will the plaintiff prevail?
After the project was completed, a portion of the processing plant exploded, injuring the plaintiff. During discovery in an action by the plaintiff against the engineer, it was established that the explosion was caused by a design defect that was unrelated to the filter system designed by the engineer. However, the defect was present in the blueprint signed by the engineer.
A company designed and built a processing plant for the manufacture of an explosive chemical. An engineer was retained by the company to design a filter system for the processing plant. She prepared an application for a permit to build the plant's filter system and submitted it to the state's Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). As required by DEP regulations, the engineer submitted a blueprint to the DEP with the application for permit. The blueprint showed the entire facility and was signed and sealed by her as a licensed professional engineer.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
C is correct. The plaintiff cannot establish the second element here, however. The engineer owed a duty to reasonably exercise professional judgment as to the design of the filter system, but she was not retained to oversee or design the entire plant. The explosion did not result from any defect related to the filter system. Thus, she owed no duty to the plaintiff to detect any defects separate from the filter system.
A is incorrect. The engineer was not retained to review the entire plant, and thus she had no duty to go looking for defects beyond the filter system. The mere presence of the blueprint in the permit application does not alter that. Even though she signed and sealed the blueprint, there are no facts that indicate that she did so to warrant that it was free of defects. Thus, she is not liable for the unrelated defect.
B is incorrect. Joint and several liability applies only in certain circumstances, and the question does not indicate any such facts here. For example, joint and several liability applies when defendants act in a manner such that their separate acts combine to harm the plaintiff and it cannot be determined the extent to which each defendant caused the plaintiff's harm. It also applies when the defendants act in concert to harm the plaintiff. Here, however, the engineer was not acting in concert with the plant designers. The engineer was retained for a specific, limited purpose: to design only the filter system. Thus, there is no basis for joint and several liability here.
D is incorrect. This is not a situation in which the engineer's status as an independent contractor is relevant. That fact could affect, for example, a respondeat superior claim seeking to hold the company liable for the engineer's acts. However, since the plaintiff is suing the engineer directly, that doctrine does not apply, and the engineer's status as an independent contractor is no defense to her liability.