Ethical issues in engineering design - 3TU.Centre for Ethics and ...

Design of a bridge
example, in a court case involving three engineers that had worked, in different
organisations, on the wheels of the ICE train that crashed into a bridge at
Eschede in Germany severe guild could not be proven and the case was settled
[Oberlandesgerichtcelle, 2003]. After a new hall at the Charles-de-Gaulle airport
near Paris in France had collapsed on the 23 rd of May 2004, the district attorney
announced that an investigation into involuntary manslaughter would be made
[Doden na instorten vertrekhal Parijs, 2004]. It is not yet clear whether some
companies, engineers or the architect will be held liable.
In general there are three criteria used to decide whether persons can be held
liable. A norm has to be transgressed, there should be a causal connection
between this transgression and the failure and a person should be blameworthy
[Bovens, 1998, 28-31]. 7 Because there are not a lot of cases in which engineers are
convicted for design flaws causing death or injuries to third parties, it is not clear
how these criteria are interpreted.
Liability for design omissions is regulated in the contract between the customer
and the IBA, [KIvI, 2003]. A design omission is defined as something that a
good, prudent engineering company, that has the relevant knowledge and means,
should have avoided. The customer has to point out the design omission to the
engineering company and give the company time to amend it. The engineering
company is liable for the cost of amending the design omission and any damage
directly related to the design omission. The maximum amount to be paid by the
engineering company is the amount that the engineering company will be paid
for the assignment with a maximum of 1 million euros. Thus liability is limited to
1 million euros and only direct damage is covered. In this contract the
engineering company is not liable if people are killed or injured as a result of the
finished object collapsing or otherwise seriously malfunctioning.
6.5 Summary of the case and the regulative framework
The arched design of the IJburg bridge was clearly a normal design. The working
principle and normal configuration for an arched bridge are well known.
Functionally, the design was also normal, the requirements formulated for this
bridge were not exceptional compared to other arched bridges. I studied the
——————————————————————————————————
7 Following the codes is usually a way to show that the design complies with the law. It is
however not this straightforward, if a design complies with the codes it does not necessarily
mean that no norm has been transgressed, because the use of codes is not required by law. An
object should meet the requirements of the Dutch building decree. Usually following the codes
will lead to compliance but an obviously unsafe object transgresses the law even if it is
designed using the codes.
113