Craig, R W and Barnes, W C (2007) Professional employees' exposure to risk of negligence claims from the client. Construction Management and Economics, 25(7), pp. 811-819. ISSN 1466433X
Abstract
Construction professionals owe duties of care and skill to clients in both contract and tort. Usually the principal or the corporate employer takes responsibility for employees' negligence under the principle of vicarious liability. But analysis of court judgments from England, New Zealand, Hong Kong and Florida (USA) reveals circumstances in which professional employees might attract personal liability to the firm's client, despite an apparent lack of contractual or tortious relationship with that client. Professional employees of unincorporated businesses might be more exposed to this risk than employees of incorporated businesses. Factors causing professional employees to be uninsured include lack of contractual privity between client and employee and absence of compelling rules or statutes. Professional employees seem unaware of these risks. Increased awareness of these risks could encourage employees to take out insurance but clients will resist paying twice to insure the negligence of both principal and employee.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction law; contract law; liability; negligence; professional |
| Index terms: | construction professional, insurance, construction law, England, contract law, Hong Kong, New Zealand, judgment, exposure, duty, statute, negligence, liability |
| Subjects: | Geography, professional development, contract law, public and environmental health, construction law, liability law, dispute resolution, contractual role, legal systems, economic analysis |
| Topics: | Information Management, Geographical Context, Health and Safety, Business Strategy, Contract Administration, Legal Issues |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here