UK Structural Engineer facing prosecution

godtabh

Sorry I dont have a link to this as I was just emailed it.

Double manslaughter charge for structural engineer
20 June 2013
A structural engineer who is alleged to have authorised the digging of a trench under a wall that subsequently collapsed and killed two workers is to be charged with gross-negligence manslaughter.

The Crown Prosecution Service announced today (20 June) that Barry Potts is to be charged in relation to the deaths of Matthew Skeet, 19, and Kevin Ruffles, 57, on a building site in Suffolk on 21 October 2010.

Senior Crown Advocate Gaon Hart said: "The CPS carefully reviewed all of the evidence gathered by Suffolk Police during their investigation into the tragic deaths. It is alleged that Mr Potts gave Matthew Skeet and Kevin Ruffles permission to dig a trench under part of the wall at the Old Maltings, in Worlingworth, Suffolk, which weakened the foundations and led the wall to collapse."

In addition to the two counts of gross-negligence manslaughter Potts is facing a charge under section 7 of the HSWA 1974 for failing to ensure the health and safety of others affected by his acts, or omissions.

The CPS also confirmed that the company that owned the site, Elliston Steady & Hawes (Building) Ltd, is to face charges under sections 2(1) and 3(1) of the HSWA 1974 in relation to the incident.

Barry Potts and Elliston Steady & Hawes (Building) Ltd have been summonsed to appear before Ipswich magistrates on 5 July.

Serious stuff. Your actions as an engineer has consequences

longhalloween

I remember seeing an image of advice to medical students saying "Don't cheat on your exams, you might kill someone"

Guess the same applies to engineers too.

Sparks

First lecture, first year of engineering in TCD and we start with the Tacoma Narrows video and in the space of fifteen minutes go through the Silver bridge, the Hyatt Regency walkway collapse, Challanger, and a few others, all to make the point that if you screw up in engineering, the consequences are potentially fatal.

So... how is the OP news when it's something we learnt on day one?

mad turnip

Engineering Ethics one of the most important things not only in your final year project but a module in DCU Engineering!

Lurching

Sparks wrote: »

So... how is the OP news when it's something we learnt on day one?

Because you regularly hear about these disasters, but rarely hear of the legal outcomes down the line.

brandon_flowers

Proper order too, actions have consequences. There is nothing worse than the "It'll be grand, no need to check that" attitude. If making a decision can mean life or death for the person coming behind you then take the time to make sure it is not his death.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONE36HN66tg

This is shown/mentioned at almost every safety related training course I go to. It's not the best video on the disaster because it's a bit dressed up for TV but the impact is still severe. You will always hear people saying "Ah we've seen it all before etc" But the thing is they have never seen anything like it and hopefully never will. When I hear of a gas leak on any platform or refinery I just have to hope that the people who did the engineering studies, safety cases, certifications, inspections etc all did their job professionally.

The silver lining of the deaths of these men was the huge improvement in the North Sea operations attitude towards safety, unfortunately the same has not happened in the US, Brazil or any other location except Australia. They seem to follow the UK/Norwegian model very closely.

Ninja101

Firstly, it is alleged that the Structural Engineer is at fault.

The majority of structural failures are due to negligence by the contractor.

This looks like a small barn renovation job by a small local contractor- how much health and safety do you think was in place? Small sites are notorious for taking short cuts- look at the huge number of falls on housing estate sites. Any trench under any wall should have a temporary support. If the contractor failed to do that, them he may be at fault.

Any Engineer who works with existing structures, particularly old ones knows they can be unpredictable. Assumptions have to be made as to the strength and durability of existing elements- elements must be assumed to cracked etc. These assumptions are often not realised in practice. Often it is a judgement call as to whether a structure is sound. The engineer may well have inspected the wall before the dig and seen no obvious signs of imminent failure.

Motopepe

Ninja101 wrote: »

The engineer may well have inspected the wall before the dig and seen no obvious signs of imminent failure.

isn't this why he is facing prosecution?

2011

Link here.

Ninja101

Motopepe wrote: »

isn't this why he is facing prosecution?

You're missing the point. If there were no obvious signs of imminent failure, then NO-ONE, let alone an engineer, would have seen them.

godtabh

Ninja101 wrote: »

You're missing the point. If there were no obvious signs of imminent failure, then NO-ONE, let alone an engineer, would have seen them.

While there can be tell tail signs of failure very often structures fail suddenly. Look at the Irish Rail bridge failure, the recent bridge failure in the States etc.

The point is the engineer should have had the competence to realise that by digging a trench near a wall that there is a risk of the wall falling. Based on hazard identification/risk minimization approach to this situations that actions he took will determine the outcome of the case.

miss no stars

godtabh wrote: »

While there can be tell tail signs of failure very often structures fail suddenly. Look at the Irish Rail bridge failure, the recent bridge failure in the States etc.

Not really a good example. The sea scouts warned IE almost a week beforehand that there was something very wrong with the bridge- that it appeared to be damaged and the water flow at the base had changed but IE failed to inspect properly. There was no lack of warning there, just a lack of proper inspection.

Ninja101

godtabh wrote: »

While there can be tell tail signs of failure very often structures fail suddenly. Look at the Irish Rail bridge failure, the recent bridge failure in the States etc.

The point is the engineer should have had the competence to realise that by digging a trench near a wall that there is a risk of the wall falling. Based on hazard identification/risk minimization approach to this situations that actions he took will determine the outcome of the case.

How do you know he hadn't the competence to realise that? There aren't enough facts to make a proper call, but the chances of this being due to direct negligence by the Structural Engineer are slim I reckon.

godtabh

Ninja101 wrote: »

How do you know he hadn't the competence to realise that? There aren't enough facts to make a proper call, but the chances of this being due to direct negligence by the Structural Engineer are slim I reckon.

Well the wall fell down after giving an instruction to dig so thats an indication he didn't have the competence. He has been as a result.

Thats another indication. Doesn't mean he is guilty or likely to be found guilty but if he hasnt followed standard SOP and is proven to be negligent his competence would be called into question. Even if he isnt found guilty he still may have his competency called into question by the relevant professional bodies.

Oirish

We all have off days - and while the deaths are tragic - I'm sure more than one person checked or built or designed this structure.

godtabh

Oirish wrote: »

We all have off days - and while the deaths are tragic - I'm sure more than one person checked or built or designed this structure.

He gave the instruction so the decision rests with him

Ninja101

godtabh wrote: »

Well the wall fell down after giving an instruction to dig so thats an indication he didn't have the competence. He has been as a result.

Thats another indication. Doesn't mean he is guilty or likely to be found guilty but if he hasnt followed standard SOP and is proven to be negligent his competence would be called into question. Even if he isnt found guilty he still may have his competency called into question by the relevant professional bodies.

It is not necessarily an indication that he didn't have the "competence". Assuming this guy was Chartered (small barn renovation- probably a one man operation) he may well have been perfectly competent, with his design checked by UK building control etc, no doubt.

You seem convinced that this guy is to blame here, without the full possession of the facts, ignoring the statistics of structural failures, and despite the fact that sometimes engineering calls made cannot foresee or quantify all possible variables. That is poor judgement on your part and not good "investigative engineering" for want of a better expression! Perhaps you've never had to make such calls yourself on the ground so you don't understand what's involved?

godtabh

I'm not a structural engineer so no

I also dont assume he is guilty. I have read the facts as presented and made a call