An engineering firm is hired to design a new pedestrian bridge for a city. During the design phase, the lead engineer realizes that the project requires expertise in seismic design, which they lack. Instead of seeking guidance from a seismic design expert, the engineer proceeds with the design, assuming it will be "good enough." After construction, an earthquake causes significant structural damage to the bridge, leading to injuries and property damage. The court determines that both the engineer and the contractor (who failed to follow some safety protocols during construction) were negligent. How will the court most likely handle liability in this case?

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

The question asks how liability will be handled when both the engineer and the contractor are found negligent in the construction of a bridge. The key concept here is fault-based liability and how courts allocate responsibility.

Option: 'The liability will be based on the degree of responsibility assigned by the judiciary.' This reflects the principle of comparative or apportionment of fault, where each party's share of liability is determined by the extent of their negligent contribution. Here, the engineer breached the duty of care by proceeding without seismic expertise, and the contractor breached safety protocols. The court will assess factors such as the foreseeability of harm, the magnitude of each party's breach of duty, and the causal connection to the injuries and property damage to determine each party's proportion of fault.

Why this reasoning makes sense: In many jurisdictions, liability for concurrent tortfeasors is not all-or-nothing. Rather than assigning full liability to one party, courts often allocate fault so that a party responsible for a greater share of the risk or harm bears a larger portion of the damages. This approach aligns with basic tort principles like duty, breach, causation, and damages, and accommodates the reality that multiple actors contributed to the harm.

What this option does not entail: It does not imply sole liability on one defendant by default; it recognizes that both engineer and contractor contributed to the outcome. It also doesn’t rely on rigid or absolute blame, but on a reasoned appraisal of each party’s degree of responsibility based on evidence presented at trial.

In summary, the court’s approach to liability in this scenario will center on apportioning damages in proportion to each party’s demonstrated level of fault, rather than assigning all liability to a single actor without considering relative contribution to the harm.

APSC_V 450 201 2024W2 Week 5 Quiz

View Explanation

Log in for full answers

Similar Questions

In a comparative negligence state, if the plaintiff in a negligence lawsuit is found to be 30 percent negligent, the plaintiff would recover:

Comparative negligence allows a defendant to argue that a plaintiff/victim’s own conduct contributed to the injuries sustained by the plaintiff/victim.

In a consumer society, many adults channel creativity into buying things

Economic stress and unpredictable times have resulted in a booming industry for self-help products

People born without creativity never can develop it

A product has a selling price of $20, a contribution margin ratio of 40% and fixed cost of $120,000. To make a profit of $30,000. The number of units that must be sold is: Type the number without $ and a comma. Eg: 20000

Which of the following statement regarding cost is correct:

More Practical Tools for Students Powered by AI Study Helper

Homework AI Solver

Stylized AI Paper Writer

Plagiarism Checker Assistant

Citation AI Academic Writing Tool

In-Class Translation Assistant

AI Note Generator

AI Quiz Answers

Past Exam Questions from University Test Bank

Smart Practice Assistant

Adaptive Practice

Making Your Study Simpler