ENGINEEKS AND THE LAW OF NEGLIGENCE 59 



there was no contract between the architect and the builder, 

 that the committee had stipulated with the plaintiff that he 

 should pay the architect, and that the architect was not liable 

 to the builder for any inaccuracy in the quantities. 



Mr. Justice Byles, in summing up, directed the jury that the 

 defendant had stipulated that the plaintiff should pay him for 

 the calculation of the quantities, and, having been paid for them 

 by him, the defendant was liable to compensate him if the bill 

 was not reasonably correct. The jury found for the plaintiff. 



(Compare the case of Young v. Blake, 1887, 2 H. B. C., 106, 

 noted post, Chap. IX., 4.) 



If an engineer order extras, and it is subsequently ascertained 

 that he really has no authority to do so, the contractor might 

 possibly sue him as for breach of warranty of authority. (See 

 Randall v. Trimen,I856, 18 C. B. 786, noted Chap. XII. Q,post.) 



11. Measure of damages. The amount of the fees which 

 the engineer was to have earned is not the full measure of 

 damages. Thus, to take an illustration from the law as 

 applied to a valuer, whose position resembles that of an 

 engineer, it has been decided that a valuer employed to value 

 property proposed as security for a mortgage is liable to his 

 employer for omission to use due skill, care, and diligence in 

 making the valuation. The measure of damages is the loss 

 and expense caused to the employer in direct consequence of 

 the negligence. But to recover the damage it must be shown 

 that the employer acted on the faith of the valuation, and did 

 not use his own judgment in making the advance (Crabb v. 

 Brinsley, 1888, 4 T. L. R., 14). So it is presumed that an 

 engineer would incur an equally serious liability in the like case. 



In spite of the above cases, the measure of damages which 

 may be awarded against an engineer or architect who has been 

 guilty of negligence in superintending is not easy to define. 

 In one case an architect was alleged to have been negligent in 

 granting certificates for work which ought not to have been 

 certified as being in accordance with the contract. Baron 

 Fitzgerald told the jury that the measure of damages could 

 not by any possibility be what would be necessary to put the 

 work in the condition required by the contract that would be 

 as against the party who was paid for the performance of the 

 work. The damages should be measured as to what loss the 

 plaintiff had suffered by reason of the negligent performance 



