Q: Does every state license structural engineers? Can civil engineers hold themselves out as structural engineers? Are there any limitations?

A: There are six states that specifically recognize and regulate the practice of structural engineering as a separate class of engineers. The most recent state to enact a limited-practice act is the state of Washington. Washington joins California, Oregon, and Nevada as states that have limited-practice acts. Basically, the limited-practice acts require that only a licensed structural engineer be allowed to perform work on or design significant structures. Significant structures generally include tall buildings, long bridges, hazardous facilities, essential facilities, hospitals, and other significant facilities. Illinois and Hawaii are the only states with full-practice acts. In the states that limit practice, structural engineers are recognized as a specialty branch of engineering by statute and must have additional experience and certifications to be a properly licensed structural engineer.

Q: In the March 2007 issue of Structural Engineer you noted that a professional engineer could escape liability for his/her professional negligence if a corporate veil was "thrown up." Your comment implies that liability for professional negligence could be avoided by a corporate veil. Is this a correct understanding?

A: Thank you for the opportunity for clarifying an earlier comment. The point that was intended to be made in the earlier article was that there is a distinction between personal liability and personal liability for payment of civil damages as a result of professional errors and omissions. There is personal liability for violations of the standards of practice, which obviously could include professional errors and omissions. It is important to note the distinction between personal liability for violation for the standard of practice, which such standards of practice are meant to protect the public as a matter of policy. The law holds the individual licensee accountable for actions taken by way of their professional standing. In the case of violations of the standards of practice, generally a state regulatory scheme, the individual engineer will be personally liable. In cases where a firm or engineer is negligent, and that engineer or firm has been set-up as a corporate entity or some type of limited liability company, then for purposes of responding to damages based upon finding a liability, that corporation or limited liability company will be the responsible entity for the financial damages. The primary distinction is personal responsibility for professional conduct versus responsibility for payment of damages. Professional engineers, like almost all licensed professionals remain personally responsible pursuant to their state’s standards of practice. However, they may not be personally liable to pay for damages, depending upon each state’s law governing civil liability and responsibility for payment of judgments in civil actions.

Q: Our firm purchased software for piping design. This software 3-D models piping and equipment, interface pipe stress analysis, and can reduce 3-D model graphics to a conventional set of isometric piping construction documents. However, the software does not make conversions for structural components and makes no attempt at a structural construction document. The drawings produced with respect to the structural components are a significant reduction of conciseness and quality and do not follow industry standard practices. Is the use of such drawings a breach of standard of care for structural engineering professionals?

A: Based on the information provided, and if it is generally accepted in the professional structural engineering community in which this engineer practices, if the use of such drawings are below industry standards then it would be a violation of the standard of care of design professionals to use these drawings in a structural context.

This question raises several points given the new software development, particularly 3-D modeling and Building Information Modeling (BIM) systems that are coming into common practice and the lack of standards and interface capability among disciplines using such software. BIM presents a host of potential legal issues revolving around changing responsibility for design and the adequacy of the design from the perspective of numerous professionals involved in the creation of a work. The question posed is likely to be common where the software in question does an excellent job with respect to piping equipment, interfaces, and stress analysis, but does nothing with regard to structural components that attach that pipe to a structure. The practicing engineer cannot take this software at face value as being in conformance with the standard of practice. An engineer must always exercise his/her independent professional judgment with regard to BIM software or any other computerized applications within the office. The engineer needs to know the limitations and understand the applications. This question is a clear example of the limitations of technology and its practical application, which can lead to professional liability exposure for the naïve practicing engineer.

Michael J. Baker, Esq., is a partner in the Cerritos, Calif.-based law firm of Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo. He is an expert in design and construction contracts, mediation, and litigation. Please send him your legal questions via e-mail at mbaker@gostructural.com.