THE ENGINEER'S ASSISTANT 197 



pay any attention to the orders of any engineer except the 

 engineer named in the contract, or some other gentleman 

 acting under the written authority of the employers. The 

 most approved plan is to insert a clause in the contract con- 

 ferring power upon the engineer to appoint an assistant and 

 expressly limiting the duties of the assistant (see, e.g., Form 

 IIA., Gl. Impost). Sometimes, however, the contract provides 

 for payment on certificate by " the engineer for the time being 

 of the employer " or " the engineer in charge of the work." 

 In such cases it is submitted that the granting of certificates 

 will be the duty of the engineer in charge at the time when 

 the work in question was done. Where, however, the chief 

 engineer is referred to by name, the duty of certifying must be 

 discharged by him and by him alone. (See Ranger v. Great 

 Western Railway, 1854, 5 H. L. C. 72, 91.) 



3. Responsibility of engineer for acts of assistant. We have 

 seen that, generally speaking, the maxim respondeat superior 

 applies to make the engineer liable for the acts and defaults 

 of an assistant employed by him (see Chap. V., 9, supra). 

 It would be impossible for any responsible person to be allowed 

 to shield himself behind a subordinate. In the case of an 

 architect it has been decided that he is not entitled to rely 

 implicitly on the efficiency of the clerk of the works. He must 

 himself exercise reasonable supervision. In Saunders v. Broad- 

 stairs Local Board, 1890, 2 H. B. C. 159, engineers who were 

 charged with negligence in the laying out and superintending 

 the erection of certain sewers relied (inter alia) on the fact 

 that the defendants had appointed an incompetent clerk of 

 the works. This, however, was held to be no excuse for their 

 negligence. (See this case further considered, Chap. V., 9, 

 ante.) 



4. Entire work of supervision not to be delegated. It is not 



competent for an engineer to entrust the entire work of super- 

 vision to his assistant. A Scotch case may be usefully cited 

 in this connection. An architect was charged with negligence 

 in not having properly supervised the erection of a building. 

 Owing to certain boards having been laid on damp mortar, 

 dry rot set in some time after the building was completed. It 

 was held that he was liable. The judges pointed out that an 

 architect does not fulfil his duty of supervision merely by 

 making occasional visits to the building and getting any parts 



