“I expected you to know that and not charge\u00a0for researching it.“<\/p>\n
This was the gist of a recent exchange I learned about between a civil litigation lawyer and\u00a0an engineer.\u00a0 But, should he have known?<\/p>\n
The lawyer was concerned about the engineer charging fees for researching\u00a0a technical issue.\u00a0 It\u00a0so happened it was\u00a0in an area of practice that was\u00a0not so well defined in eastern Canada.\u00a0 Hardly known at all for that matter.\u00a0 In this case, information about the different ways of testing for\u00a0a particular\u00a0physical property of a material.\u00a0 Also\u00a0information on\u00a0guidelines, standards and codes for evaluating the test results.<\/p>\n
I also learned that the different test methods\u00a0had\u00a0their pros and cons.\u00a0 One method had some acceptance in Ontario and the New England states but was not available in eastern Canada.\u00a0 Identifying and carefully evaluating\u00a0a\u00a0suitable alternative method was necessary in\u00a0this forensic case.\u00a0\u00a0A\u00a0poorly defined\u00a0situation\u00a0also existed for guidelines\u00a0for evaluating the test results.<\/p>\n
I thought about forensic investigations that I’ve carried out\u00a0over the years.\u00a0 Some with technical issues that I needed to research before the investigation\u00a0could be completed.\u00a0\u00a0Technical issues that come along once or twice in a forensic-engineering-practice lifetime.\u00a0 It’s unreasonable to expect an engineer to be up to date on\u00a0such obscure\u00a0issues, unwise if he doesn’t research them, and wrong if he doesn’t get paid for doing the research.<\/p>\n
Examples from my files of cases needing research<\/strong><\/p>\n Very small tunnels<\/strong> don’t fail very often in eastern Canada – when was the last time you heard of one?\u00a0\u00a0For example,\u00a0pipe tunnels that carry utilities under infrastructure.\u00a0 But when they do fail then soil liquefaction<\/em> and tunnel driving methods<\/em> might need to\u00a0be researched – technical issues that don’t crop up very often at all.\u00a0 An engineer would be wise to research the\u00a0state-of-the-art for\u00a0these topics.\u00a0 I\u00a0did in one insurance case but the party responsible for the tunnel failure unfortunately didn’t.<\/p>\n (Soil liquefaction<\/em> is the process of a soil becoming liquid when vibrated)<\/p>\n Inadequate underpinning\u00a0 <\/strong>Fluid-like concrete, ‘flowable fill’, is used often enough in eastern Canada.\u00a0 But concern about the slight shrinkage of the concrete on setting up – small fractions of an inch, holds little interest.\u00a0 It’s just a wee bit too exotic for day-to-day engineering where the interest most of the time is\u00a0simply filling a\u00a0hole in the ground.<\/p>\n Except when\u00a0counsel wants to know if a\u00a0building was adequately underpinned, and the magnitude of such shrinkage\u00a0figures in the assessment.\u00a0 Then this obscure, seemingly insignificant characteristic\u00a0must be researched.<\/p>\n Investigating slip and fall accidents<\/strong> is another\u00a0poorly defined\u00a0area of practice in eastern Canada.\u00a0 Even when a person is wearing standard footwear the practice down this end of the country is not well defined.\u00a0 The guidelines and codes are virtually silent.<\/p>\n The obscurity goes to another level when a person in their bare feet slips and falls on a wet\u00a0surface – that is supposed to be dry, in a public place.\u00a0 What do you use to\u00a0simulate a bare foot in testing skid resistance under these conditions?\u00a0 (Research told me what)<\/p>\n Factor in complex slip and fall biomechanics and\u00a0an engineer\u00a0can’t get out\u00a0of the investigative starting-gate until he’s done some research.\u00a0 Some of this\u00a0engineering is once-in-a-life-time-of-practice in eastern Canada, and I suspect in other areas as well.<\/p>\n How about a man who falls off a step ladder<\/strong> with a slightly bent leg, strikes his head and dies?\u00a0 What kind of expected knowledge would guide an engineer on how to investigate whether or not the bent leg caused the accident?\u00a0 There was none and there was nothing in the engineering text books either.\u00a0 I found the answer when I researched the work done by movie stuntmen.<\/p>\n What about the man who struck an obstacle on the highway<\/strong>, lost control, drove off a cliff and died?\u00a0 How to investigate if the obstacle contributed to the accident?\u00a0 A literature\u00a0search established that the answer was in speed bump research.\u00a0 Checking that research led to a field investigative test method that established the contribution made by the obstacle.\u00a0 Counsel for the RCMP\u00a0got their answer from preliminary\u00a0findings – it was too dangerous to continue with the field testing.<\/p>\n These problems<\/strong><\/p>\n I’ve had\u00a0all these\u00a0problems and others\u00a0cross my desk in recent years and my clients understood the need\u00a0for research and\u00a0my\u00a0need to be\u00a0compensated.<\/p>\n Figuring out on a need-to-know basis<\/strong><\/p>\n As engineers and applied scientists, we often work on a need-to-know basis, figuring out what to do and how to do it when the need arises.\u00a0 And often enough it involves research when the knowledge doesn’t exist in the locality where the failure or accident occurred and the engineer practices.<\/p>\n Engineers are educated and trained to investigate and figure things out based on first principles.\u00a0 They\u00a0don’t expect to know everything from the get-go.<\/p>\n I took about 57 different courses in getting my two degrees in civil engineering and they were all about first principles.\u00a0 And studied a number of other\u00a0subjects during a two year land surveying course.<\/p>\n Engineers must\u00a0research poorly defined areas of practice<\/strong><\/p>\n If there are myriad ways of testing the physical property of a building material then it’s\u00a0smart to research the most suitable method for the\u00a0locality where the failure or accident occurred.\u00a0 Particularly when\u00a0any one\u00a0type of case doesn’t occur that often, and test methods might have changed in the interim.<\/p>\n As well, if widely accepted standards for evaluating the test results don’t exist in the\u00a0area where the problem occurred\u00a0then standards and historical usage in other areas must be researched.\u00a0 This is the only means of gaining some understanding of the significance of\u00a0the test results in the\u00a0locality of interest.<\/p>\n Experts don’t know everything – and when they don’t know they do what’s necessary, they research<\/strong><\/p>\n Counsel and the engineer in the situation quoted above\u00a0would\u00a0be better informed\u00a0if\u00a0they read some of the decisions by judges in the supreme courts in eastern Canada.\u00a0 Go see what happens to experts who don’t research engineering practice that is poorly defined in\u00a0their locality, and in many others.\u00a0 See also what happens to counsel’s case and the client’s claim or defense.<\/p>\n It’s unreasonable to expect an engineer to be up-to-date on\u00a0infrequently occurring problems in poorly defined fields of practice, unwise if he doesn’t research them, and wrong if he doesn’t get paid for the researching.<\/p>\n .<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" “I expected you to know that and not charge\u00a0for researching it.“ This was the gist of a recent exchange I learned about between a civil litigation lawyer and\u00a0an engineer.\u00a0 But, should he have known? The lawyer was concerned about the … Continue reading