Geotechnical News • September 2016
41
GEO-INTEREST
Case History IX
Part 2
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 judge-
ment of the trial judge who heard the
case. Where the original judgement
gives names of those involved the
appropriate terms Contractor, Owner,
Engineer, Technician, etc. have been
substituted. Although longer than
some of the other cases it is valuable
because it is clearly written and per-
mits the reader to follow the reason-
ing by which the judge arrived at his
decision.
The following is the conclusion to Part
1 of Case History IX which appeared
on pages 51 – 54 of the June issue of
Geotechnical News
Following this conversation Mr.
Brown put the following, in capital
letters, as a note to the Foundation
Plan drawings:
Site to be preloaded as per Smith’s
Laboratory Report dated June 18,
1979. Preload to remain in place 8
weeks or until settlement ceases.
Thus it was that part of the defendant’s
preliminary soils investigation report
and some of Mr. Jones remarks
on the telephone to Mr. Brown
concerning settlement time became
transformed into specific construction
specifications on the final foundation
plan. I am satisfied that the defen-
dant’s personnel never approved of
this notation, and that they remained
unaware of it until after construction
had been completed and the settle-
ment had occurred.
Mr. Brown was candid in conceding
his responsibility for the project, and
that there had been some oversight
on the Contractor’s part.
He said he knew that settlement
gauges must be used in order to be
sure when settlement has ceased, that
the preload should not be removed
until settlement has ceased, and that a
preload must extend beyond the edges
of the actual building envelope. He
said he assumed from the defendant’s
report that a properly designed preload
was then already in place. While the
report was described as “preliminary’’
it did not seem preliminary in sub-
stance, he said, because it contained
specific recommendations and conclu-
sions. He thought the defendant would
have known, as a result of his tele-
phone conversation with Mr. Jones,
that the report was being used for
design purposes. He said he assumed
from this conversation that monitoring
the preload would not be necessary if
it remained in place for eight weeks.
While maintaining that the Contrac-
tor was not qualified to design a
preload, Mr. Brown agreed that it
had the responsibility to see that a
proper foundation design was done,
including the preload, and to inspect
the site. No preload design was in
fact provided to the plaintiff, nor did
the Contractor or any engineer on its
behalf, inspect the site before build-
ing commenced.
Mr. Doe testified that he received the
plans from the contractor on June 27
and read the note reproduced above.
He understood it to mean that the
individual truckload piles of sand
dumped within the building envelope
constituted a proper preload, and
that all he had to do was leave them
there for eight weeks and the ground
would be ready to support the floor.
Mr. Doe said he assumed that the Con-
tractor had drawn correct conclusions
from the defendant’s report. For that
reason, he said, he put reliance on the
report, and did what he thought it said.
Should the defendant then, in prepar-
ing its report, have foreseen the pos-
sibility that this might happen?
Mr. Smith believed, quite correctly,
that there was an engineer in overall
