60 THE LAW AFFECTING ENGINEEKS 



of his duty of superintendence. (Armstrong v. Jones, 1896, 

 2 H. B. C. 15.) 



The fact that the damages which may be recovered against 

 an engineer for negligence in supervising are not limited to 

 the amount of fees earned by the engineer, was emphasised in 

 the extraordinary case of Saunders v. Broadstairs Local Board, 

 1890, 2 H. B. C. 160. There the plaintiffs, two engineers, 

 sued for 521 12s. 6d. for work done by them in preparing 

 surveys, schemes, estimates, specifications, etc., for certain 

 drainage work at Broadstairs, and for obtaining tenders for 

 and superintending the execution of the contract for the works. 

 The defendants counter-claimed for negligence under various 

 heads, including the unskilful preparation of bills of quantities, 

 faulty measuring up, and careless supervision. Negligence 

 was denied by the plaintiffs, but the official referee found 

 against them and awarded 4,691 12s. 6d. damages, made up 

 as follows : (a) 2,046 12s. 6d., amount overpaid to the con- 

 tractor by reason of the negligence of the engineers in over- 

 certifying the quantities ; (b) 2,400, estimated cost of doing 

 bad work over again ; and (c) 240, actual cost of repairs 

 already done to defective work. This verdict was upheld by 

 the Court of Appeal, although the whole amount of the contract 

 which the engineers were instructed to superintend was a sum 

 of about 5,000. 



The following case also throws some light upon what may 

 be the consequences of negligence on the part of an engineer : 



A ship was to be lengthened and repaired to the satisfaction 

 of the consulting engineer of the employer. Before the vessel 

 was delivered, the engineer and employers had abundant 

 opportunity of seeing whether the lengthening and repairs 

 were or were not duly carried out. There was no fraud of any 

 sort, and the existence of a defect might easily have been 

 ascertained before and at the time of delivery of the vessel, 

 and the fact that it was not ascertained was owing to the 

 neglect and default of the employer's agents. Defects having 

 become apparent after the ship was delivered over, the owners 

 brought an action to recover damages in respect thereof. It 

 was decided that the utmost which was recoverable from the 

 builders was the amount which it would have cost to have 

 rectified the defect at the time when the vessel was delivered, 

 and before she was sent on any voyage. (In re Trent and 

 Humber Company, 1868, L. E. 6 Eq. 396.) 



