| Author |
Message |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 01:31 pm: |    |
I was told by my project manager to purposely ignore any safety violations that I see on the job site. For example, on some of my site photos I noticed a serious safety issue but was told not to verbally mention it to the Contractor or write anything down in an e-mail or field report.
I know that means and methods and safety are the sole responsibility of the Contractor, but how can we not claim involvement if the violation is obvious from the photo? I can't claim that I did not see it or was not there. |
Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI
Senior Member
Username: rliebing
Post Number: 428
Registered: 02-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 01:41 pm: | |
Tough one! You need to obey your Project Manager, but those comments and directions are wrong. Some re-thinking is needed but not sure who should do it.
Design professionals are advised by their liability insurance providers to avoid getting involved with safety issues and safety programs [which really are under the purview of the contractors]. But I think case law supports the idea of "mentioning" safety violations to an in-charge person for the contractor.
DO NOT give directions to the workers involved, and do your "mentioning" in a quiet manner. Without this, you could find yourself in a psoition in a court room trying to claim you saw nothing when indeed you did see it [that's lying]. Basically doing nothing is wrong-- just don't extend yourself and try to do too much outside your purview. |
George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: geverding
Post Number: 195
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 02:20 pm: | |
Right on, Ralph. I think it is always appropriate to "mention" safety issues, but never to put yourself in a position of directing safety measures. Examples:
Correct phone call to contractor, or statement to superintendent: “I noticed an unprotected opening in the floor on Level Three.” You must make this statement; not to do so would be negligent. You noticed the condition, told the responsible party what you saw, and did not direct a solution – the solution is up to the contractor.
Incorrect phone call to contractor, or statement to superintendent: “You need to build a guardrail around that opening in the floor on Level Three.” You should never make this statement; it implies that you are responsible for safety methods. Let the contractor decide how to solve the problem.
Scenario: You notice a worker walking toward the opening, seemingly unaware it is there. Yell “WATCH OUT”. Regardless of your status – contractor, architect, owner – you are a human being first, and you must act to prevent a clear and immediate danger of injury.
At least, that’s the take I have on it from various insurance and legal professionals. You and your boss should check with yours and see if they agree. |
Marc C Chavez
Senior Member
Username: mchavez
Post Number: 162
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 02:22 pm: | |
Ralph you are right on. In fact many of the larger construction companies specifically direct all people on the site (architects included) to bring safety concerns to the on-site supervisor immediately. |
Ron Beard CCS
Senior Member
Username: rm_beard_ccs
Post Number: 146
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 03:15 pm: | |
Anon:
Perhaps an internal memo to the file confirming that your PM directed you to "purposely ignore any safety violations." It protects you and, perhaps, brings the issue to attention of any principals. Perhaps you misunderstood what your PM was intending to say or perhaps the PM didn't properly convey what he meant to say. In any case, it might provide the PM the opportunity to "rethink" his/her position.
Is there a company position/directive providing direction in job site conditions or was the PM responding to a specific project or contractor?
Ron |
Ron Beard CCS
Senior Member
Username: rm_beard_ccs
Post Number: 147
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 03:19 pm: | |
Anon:
Perhaps an internal memo to the file confirming that your PM directed you to "purposely ignore any safety violations." It protects you and, perhaps, brings the issue to attention of any principals. Perhaps you misunderstood what your PM was intending to say or perhaps the PM didn't properly convey what he meant to say. In any case, it might provide the PM the opportunity to "rethink" his/her position.
Is there a company position/directive providing direction in job site conditions or was the PM responding to a specific project or contractor?
Ron |
Mark Gilligan SE, CSI
Senior Member
Username: markgilligan
Post Number: 91
Registered: 05-2005
| | Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 11:54 am: | |
I believe both extremes are wrong. The secret is to make a distinction between major and minor safety hazards. You should notify the superintendent about major hazards. The minor hazards you do not even list in your notes. This is based on the belief that if nobody has any proof that you were aware of the hazard it is hard to hold you liable. Depending on how you define a major hazard you may find that you seldom ever report anything.
When you notify the Contractor of a safety hazard you should note this in your field report. You will then note that your scope of work does not include identifiction of hazards and that you will not follow up to verify correction of the problem.
If the safety hazard impacts you personally it is valid to notify the Contractor and Owner that you could not observe certain portions of the work because of safety considerations. |
(Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 09:43 am: | |
Misconceptions cloud the safety issue, some of which have been expressed in these posts.
The principals of the A/E firms should review their procedures with their professional liability insurers. They can properly advise on matters of professional risk exposure! |
Nathan Woods, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: nwoods
Post Number: 107
Registered: 08-2005
| | Posted on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 11:00 am: | |
I agree with our unregistered guest. There is ample case law on file about this subject. |
4specs.com Home Page