Johnny Ch Lok

Tort and Contract Law Questions Johnny Ch Lok

Principles of tort law, "To satisfy the court that compensation should be made, the plaintiff in a tort action must substantiate that:1. the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care,2. the defendant breached that duty by his or her conduct, and3. the defendant's conduct caused the injury to the plaintiff."The standard of care engineers have a duty to uphold is "to use reasonable care and skill of engineers of ordinary experience."In this case, dependent on the terms and conditions of the contract, CRUDDI may or may not be liable to OILI for the costs of replacing the air conditioning unit and perhaps even lost production as a result. If this is the case, then CRUDDI could take action against MESSI for an amount equal to the damages; otherwise, OILI could commense action against MESSI directly. MESSI will likely be found liable under tort for the air conditioning replacement and lost productivity as a result of the original unit's inadequacy because 1) they as engineers had a duty to "use reasonable care and skill of engineers of ordinary experience" in designing the air conditioning unit, 2) they breached this duty by designing a wholely inadequate system for the purpose it was intended, and 3) this breach caused financial injury to OILI . Answer to this contract law caseYes, I do think the owner would be successful in a tort claim against the engineer. For liability in tort to exist, three things must be present 1. "the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care,2. the defendant breached that duty by his or her conduct, and3. the defendant's conduct caused the injury to the plaintiff."In fact, this is an actual case (Law Text section 4.4): 1983 by Ontario Supreme Court: Unit Farm Concrete Products Ltd. v. Eckerlea Acres Ltd. et al.; Canama Contracting Ltd. v. Huffman et al. Contractor engaged by owner to construct barn to be placed over a manure pit. The contractor succeeded with action against an engineer of the dept. of Agriculture, because the contractor relied on advice of the engineer, a friend of the contractor, in confirming that his (ultimately very faulty) design was sufficient. Interestingly, the engineer was not a consulting engineer, nor was he employed to review the plans; he just gave them a quick look as a friend and told the contractor "Good set of plans. I like the detail. Wish I could spend that amount of time on each project. Keep up the good work." The engineer didn't know he was being consulted, but the court pointed out that, when "being held to account for negligence, it is not what we subjectively feel or think but what our conduct objectively makes the other person believe we feel or think." Each found 50% responsible for damages. Contractor appealed this case to the Court of Appeals, which held the engineer 75% responsible and the contractor 25% responsible. As such, the result in this case will be the same due to precedent. For liability in tort to exist, three things must be present .1. "the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care,2. the defendant breached that duty by his or her conduct, and3. the defendant's conduct caused the injury to the plaintiff."