Geotechnical News • June 2016
51
GROUNDWATER
and their hydraulic properties.
Engineering Geology, 165(SI):
3–19.
Safari, E., Jalili Ghazizade, M.,
Abduli, M.A., and Gatmiri, B.
2014. Variation of crack intensity
factor in three compacted clay
liners exposed to annual cycle of
atmospheric conditions with and
without geotextile cover. Waste
Management, 34: 1408–1415.
Schakelford, C.D., and Javed, F. 1991.
Large-scale laboratory perme-
ability testing of a compacted clay
soil. Geotechnical Testing Journal,
14(2): 171–179.
SQAE, 1985. Clauses administratives
particulières – Section E. Société
québécoise d’assainissement des
eaux, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Tavenas, F., Jean, P., Leblond, P., and
Leroueil, S. 1983. The perme-
ability of natural soft clays. Part
II: Permeability characteristics.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
20(4): 645–660.
Xue, Q., Wan, Y., Chen, Y.-J., and
Zhao, Y. 2014. Experimental
research on the evolution laws of
soil fabric of compacted clay liner
in a landfill final cover under the
dry-wet cycle. Bulletin of Engi-
neering Geology and the Environ-
ment, 73: 517–529.
Yesiller, N., Miller, C.J., Inci, G., and
Yaldo, K., 2000. Desiccation and
cracking behavior of three com-
pacted landfill liner soils. Engi-
neering Geology, 57: 105–121.
Robert P. Chapuis
Department CGM,
École
Polytechnique, P.O. Box 6079,
Stn. CV, Montreal, Quebec,
Canada, H3C 3A7
(514) 340 4711 ext. 4427
Fax: (514) 340 4477
Email:
GEO-INTEREST
Case History IX
Part 1
Hugh Nasmith has put together an
excellent book on litigation which
is easy to read, covers the litigation
scene thoroughly, has subtle humour,
and most important of all, is umder-
standable. He remarks in the opening
paragraphs that experienced geotech-
nical engineers will find nothing new
in the book except comfort that their
situation is not unique. This is true but
experienced engineers should read it
anyway. (From a review by William A.
Trow).
This case history is copied almost
word for word from the written
judgement of the trialjudge who
heard the case. Where the original
judgement gives names of those
involved the appropriate terms Con-
tractor, Owner, Engineer, Technician,
etc. have beensubstituted.Although
longer thansome of theother casesitis
valuablebecause it is clearly written
andpermits the reader to follow the
reasoning by which thejudge arrived
at his decision.
The defendant is a one-engineer
soils engineering firm against which
the plaintiff seeks to recover for
the failure of a concrete floor in a
warehouse on its land which settled
because of inadequacies in the design
and application of a “preload” of
piled sand which had been used to
compress the peaty soil in prepara-
tion for construction.
The soils engineering firm (which I
shall refer to asthe “thedefendant”) was
not engaged to design or supervise
the preload. Nor was it given the
information which it would require
in order to express an opinion on
the appropriateness of the preload-
ing which the plaintiff did. But the
plaintiff says the defendant, though
not retained or paid to advise on the
matter ought to have known that it
was being relied on for advice and
had both a duty to take care not to
mislead the plaintiff and its contrac-
tors and a duty also to warn of danger
which it should have foreseen in what
the plaintiff was doing.
The present action as originally framed
was also against the contractor who
constructed the plaintiffs building,
but this claim was settled before trial.
By agreement between the present
