Geotechnical News • September 2016
43
GEO-INTEREST
proceeded to level out the preload
without knowing whether it was
still settling. He spread the sand over
the actual building envelope and the
adjacent parking area so as not only
to fill in inundations caused by the
preloading but to raise the build-
ing envelope to a higher elevation.
He then had the pile-supported
cement perimeter foundations built
and thereafter handed the job over to
the contractor for construction of the
building.
The only further involvement of the
defendant during the foundation phase
of the project was the conduct of
laboratory tests on concrete and pile-
cap samples provided to it. This did
not involve work at the site.
Ought the defendant of its own volition
to have volunteered awarning about
the preload during this period?
The plaintiff says the defendant ought
to have realized that Mr. Doe was
inexperienced and that he might be
proceeding on a dangerous course—
that the preload probably had not been
properly shaped, and was not being
monitored—and should have given
him a warning. The fact that the defen-
dant had not been engaged for preload
design or supervision is no answer
the plaintiff says, to this allegation of
negligence in failing to give some sort
of warning during or after Mr. Jones’
July 12-13 visit.
When he returned from the pile-
driving operation, Mr. Jones told Mr.
Smith of his conversation with Mr.
Doe and said that he saw no settle-
ment gauges. There can be no doubt
that Mr. Smith, had he been asked to
give his advice in the matter at this
stage, ought to have expressed doubts
on whether the preloading had been
competently done. He had himself
been at the site briefly during each
of Mr. Jones’ visits. On neither occa-
sion was there a properly-shaped or
properly-positioned preload, although
this could on both occasions to some
extent be explained. He had no knowl-
edge that there was a proper preload
in place, and good grounds for
doubting it. He knew from Mr. Jones
that it was unlikely settlement was
being monitored.
Mr. Smith testified that as a consul-
tant with a strictly limited engage-
ment he had no justification for
involving himself.
He had, of course, been retained for
restricted purposes. He knew there
was a supervising engineer in charge
and had confidence in that engineer’s
ability. A supervising engineer is
taken to accept responsibility for all
necessary engineering functions which
have not been delegated to others.
Had he been in Mr. Brown’s shoes,
Mr. Smith said, he would not have
appreciated gratuitous interference
from a soils consultant in a matter
in which the consultant had not been
engaged. Mr. Smith felt that the Con-
tractor had chosen either to use its
own resources or take advice else-
where with respect to the preloading,
and it did not seem to him that he
could properly involve himself in the
matter.
I have no doubt that there are circum-
stances in which a professional man
may have a duty to warn in connection
with matters about which he has not
specifically been engaged. But where
he knows that another member of his
calling has been retained in a mat-
ter it is difficult to conceive of such
circumstances—short, in any event,
of those involving hazard to life—in
which he would be under a duty to
involve himself without first receiving
a formal request for his opinion. The
casual enquiry made of Mr. Jones by
Mr. Doe seems to me to have fallen far
short of what an engineer could regard
as such a request.
I cannot therefore find that the
defendant was at this stage, under a
duty to make gratuitous enquiries, to
offer gratuitous advice, or to warn the
plaintiff of any risk to which it might
be exposed.
The inspector’s warning
The last on-site investigation, con-
ducted by the defendant, occurred
during September, was directly related
to the possibility of settlement, and
resulted from an expression of concern
by the municipal inspector that the
plaintiffs building might suffer the
same fate as that next door.
The municipal building inspector
suggested to Mr. Brown, the: contrac-
tor’s chief engineer, that he should
satisfy himself that his design would
not result in the sort of settlement
which had occurred in the building
on the adjoining property. At this
point the shell of the plaintiffs build-
ing was largely completed, with the
roof in place, but the concrete floor
had not yet been poured. Mr. Brown
telephoned Mr. Smith to pass on the
message. He asked Mr. Smith if he
would visit the site and see if there
was any reason for such concern. Mr.
Smith agreed and said he would call
Mr. Brown back if he concluded there
was.
Mr. Smith looked at the two build-
ings and took some photos. He con-
cluded there was nothing to suggest
that the plaintiffs building might be
in any danger. He decided there was
no reason to call Mr. Brown.
The reason Mr. Smith concluded
that there was no need for concern
was because he saw no visible
evidence of distress in the case of
the plaintiffs building. In the case of
the building next door, on the other
hand, there were obvious signs of
settlement. There was a gap, clearly
visible from the outside, between
the ground and the pile-supported
concrete perimeter wall foundations.
There was also clear evidence of
settlement of the floor inside. No set-
tlement was evident at the perimeter
of the plaintiffs building, and it had
as yet no floor. Finding no similarity
in the condition of the two buildings,
Mr. Smith concluded that there was
no need for concern.
