Why are Engineers made liable for worksite accident ?

[Watchman]

Crane collapse: Engineer liable for damages
By K. C. Vijayan, Law Correspondent
Feb 1, 2011

Three workers were killed when the crane collapsed at a
worksite in Kent Ridge Drive in 2008. Investigations showed
the crane had defects even before it was erected on the
site. -- ST FILE PHOTO

THE High Court has held an engineer liable in a civil suit
over the collapse of a tower crane that killed three workers.
The move means Mr Tan Juay Pah will have to pay damages
to crane supplier Lee Tong Boon, who in turn will have to
compensate main contractor Kimly Construction for the accident.

 

[BusNo64]

Crane collapse: Engineer liable for damages

<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/qLaox4OqIf0" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

 

[potato29]

not OK say OK, of course kena lah.

 

[Watchman]

not OK say OK, of course kena lah.

You are given equipment . How often do you over-rule
your company and tell them of that there is metal
fatigue and work cannot commence !

 

[BusNo64]

You are given equipment . How often do you over-rule
your company and tell them of that there is metal
fatigue and work cannot commence !

<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/7laBfy89qK8" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

 

[numero uno]

Crane collapse: Engineer liable for damages
By K. C. Vijayan, Law Correspondent
Feb 1, 2011

Three workers were killed when the crane collapsed at a
worksite in Kent Ridge Drive in 2008. Investigations showed
the crane had defects even before it was erected on the
site. -- ST FILE PHOTO

THE High Court has held an engineer liable in a civil suit
over the collapse of a tower crane that killed three workers.
The move means Mr Tan Juay Pah will have to pay damages
to crane supplier Lee Tong Boon, who in turn will have to
compensate main contractor Kimly Construction for the accident.

very stupid idi@tic question. why not. It's called professional responsibility . if he is paid a salary he must take responsibility for his professional opinion. otehrwise why pay him at all.
The same for lawyers, doctors, pilots, accountants. even taxi drivers. as it is negligence he should be sued and made accountable. there is just too many dead wood and bochup people in singapore. this is a wonderful wakeup call and sent a strong message to all these engineers and contractors to buck up and stop behaving like cr@p.. just like Nicoll highway collapse. in this case he got off quite lightly in my opinion given that 3 lives were lost. good that justice prevails.

 

[Krizalid]

Engineer in fatal crane collapse 'not liable for damages'

Published on Mar 5, 2012

The crane collapsed at the NUS worksite in 2008, killing three workers. -- ST PHOTO: JOYCE FANG

By K. C. Vijayan, Law Correspondent

The Court of Appeal has cleared an engineer from having to pay damages over a tower crane collapse that killed three workers.

The apex court's decision reversed a High Court ruling last year which found Mr Tan Juay Pah liable to crane supplier Rango Machinery Services, which in turn had to compensate main contractor Kimly Construction for the mishap.

The court, in 66-page judgment grounds released last Friday, ruled that Kimly and Rango cannot shift the blame for the accident to Mr Tan, who had been hired to certify the crane fit for use.

Allowing Kimly and Rango to do this would be tantamount to using Mr Tan as 'insurance cover for the mishap', said the appeals court.

Read the full story in Monday's edition of The Straits Times.

<iframe width="320" height="215" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/7Wp7xMwfS3M?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>

 

[Cestbon]

How an engineer can afford to pay for the damage? That at least $1m of damage not included life.

 

[Getloud]

very stupid idi@tic question. why not. It's called professional responsibility . if he is paid a salary he must take responsibility for his professional opinion. otehrwise why pay him at all.
The same for lawyers, doctors, pilots, accountants. even taxi drivers. as it is negligence he should be sued and made accountable. there is just too many dead wood and bochup people in singapore. this is a wonderful wakeup call and sent a strong message to all these engineers and contractors to buck up and stop behaving like cr@p.. just like Nicoll highway collapse. in this case he got off quite lightly in my opinion given that 3 lives were lost. good that justice prevails.

Of course engineer fault lah. Cannot be PAP fault what.
PAP very professional one, never their fault. If their fault, they sure admit one.

 

[potato29]

You are given equipment . How often do you over-rule
your company and tell them of that there is metal
fatigue and work cannot commence !

like that OK - die, no OK also die.:*::*::*:

 

[Balancemind]

very stupid idi@tic question. why not. It's called professional responsibility . if he is paid a salary he must take responsibility for his professional opinion. otehrwise why pay him at all.
The same for lawyers, doctors, pilots, accountants. even taxi drivers. as it is negligence he should be sued and made accountable. there is just too many dead wood and bochup people in singapore. this is a wonderful wakeup call and sent a strong message to all these engineers and contractors to buck up and stop behaving like cr@p.. just like Nicoll highway collapse. in this case he got off quite lightly in my opinion given that 3 lives were lost. good that justice prevails.

Is it so? So is the Court going to call upon the CEO of Temasek and the Chairman of GIC to pay up the massive losses under their charge. No wonder we have been told it is long long long term investments.