Hanarchy Montanarchy wrote:Okeefenokee wrote:Is that what we're doing now?
We're pretending that these engineers and contractors just showed up one day and started building a bridge? Government found out about it when they saw it on the news?
Are we pretending people aren't responsible for their shoddy work, the people that hired them are?
There is that personal responsibility ethic.
Under common law, the owner (or occupier, assuming a leasehold) is ultimately liable for whatever unreasonably dangerous or defective structures are present on the property if it causes injury to those who were invited to use them. The independent contractors that designed and installed the bridge, or who supervised that work, are responsible for their own negligence, but the owner cannot escape liability to the invitees by pointing to the latter's conduct. That's why the construction contracts often have indemnification provisions favoring the landowner, and frequently require the owner to be added as an insured to the construction company's primary and excess liability insurance policies. Of course, a municipal government being involved here, the common law rules could be affected by statutory legislation, including various forms of immunity (e.g., discretionary act immunity).