ENGINEEKS AND THE LAW OF NEGLIGENCE 53 



wanting in the competent skill of an engineer, he will not be 

 responsible for defects resulting from methods of construction 

 which his employer orders him to adopt. This principle has 

 been applied to the case of an architect. In the case of 

 Turner v. Garland, 1853, 2 H. B. C. 2, an architect was 

 employed to prepare plans for, and superintend the erection 

 of, certain model lodging-houses in accordance with the latest 

 improvements. Amongst other things, his employer told him 

 to put in a new patent concrete roofing, which cost only a 

 quarter of what a lead or slate roof would have cost. This 

 roof proved a failure, and had to be replaced in a few years 

 at a cost of 230. The architect was sued for negligence. In 

 summing up Erie, J., said : " If the architect possesses com- 

 petent skill, and was guilty of gross negligence, although of 

 competent skill, he might become liable. If he were of 

 competent skill, and paid careful attention to what he 

 undertook, he would not be liable. You should bear in mind 

 that if the building is of an ordinary description, in which he 

 has had abundance of experience, and it proved a failure, this 

 is evidence of want of skill or attention. But if the building 

 is out of the ordinary course, and you employ him about a 

 novel thing, about which he has had little experience, if it has 

 not had the test of experience, failure may be consistent with 

 skill." In the event the architect was held not liable. In 

 this case it will be observed that the use of the roof in 

 question was suggested by the employer himself ; had it been 

 recommended by the architect, he would probably have been 

 held responsible for its ultimate failure. (As to the effect of 

 the employer approving plans, see Chap. XL, 7, post.) 



5. Engineer to know the law. It would seem that an 

 engineer is bound to have some slight acquaintance with the 

 law in order to protect his clients from the risk of having 

 actions for trespass brought against them. 



In the Irish case of Monks v. Dillon, 1884, 12 L. R. Ir. 321, 

 works were executed by a contractor for a drainage board 

 under the superintendence of their engineer, who had prepared 

 the plans and often saw the works while in progress. Some 

 of the works amounted to a trespass on the plaintiff's land. 

 It was decided that the engineer was liable for the trespass 

 committed. Similarly, it is apprehended that an engineer 

 should be acquainted with local bye-laws, etc., in order that he 



