TOPIC 1

RELEVANCE OF LAW TO THE ENGINEERING PROFESSION

1. INTRODUCTION
What is the relevance of law to the Engineering Profession?-:
The definition of law is a set of conduct rules established by an authority. An example of law
is don’t drink and drive. A law is such an order that has absolute or unquestioned authourity.
Law creates rights and obligations, and the Engineer may find the need to enforce his rights
against other persons. On the other hand, an Engineer may be required to fulfill some
obligations to others. If you will then allow me to add that the course is not only for the school
(in order to satisfy the requirement for a degree) but for life in order to be able to ascertain your
rights and obligations in the society. We would now consider the aspect of law as it concerns
Engineers.
2. LAW OF CONTRACT
Engineering as a profession involves services to the society; and therefore has to be regulated
by laws that direct the conduct and relationship of one member of the society with the other.
An Engineer has to sell his services to the society either by way of his being employed or
himself employing some other persons. Hence the law of contract becomes relevant. Equally,
the standard or quality of the service he is expected to render may bring the Engineer into
contract with the doctrine of warranty which is a doctrine of the law of contract.
It is established by law that where a professional man (be it an engineer) applies for and secures
a job of a particular kind, he holds himself out as capable of practicing that calling, and must
demonstrate that he possesses the reasonable skill and competence to do the job. If he proves
incompetent, that is tantamount to a misrepresentation of his skill. It constitutes a breach of
the contract and he is liable to pay damages for that.
*For further details read the hand out on the Law of contract
3. LAW OF TORT
In the performance of his professional duties, an Engineer may be brought within the warm
embrace of the Law of Tort- which includes the Law of Negligence, Trespass or damage to
land or other property. An Electrical Engineering firm engaged to supply electricity to an area
ran its high tension wire over another person’s land and caused damage to the man’s landed
property. The firm had to pay heavily for the damage caused to the land. (National Electric
Power Authority v Mudasiru Amusa & Anor.)
The minning Engineer manager should ensure that the tools, machines and equipments to be
used in the minning operations are of standard. Such tools and equipments have to be tested
against the standard set by the Standard Organisation Of Nigeria Act 1971(SON).
As a general principle, compliance with the prescribed standards of manufactured tools and
equipment is the only safety valve for both the mines owner and the engineers managing a
minning establishment. This is shown by the decision of the House of Lords in Davie v New
Merton Board Mills Ltd. in which it was said that a manufacturer cannot be held liable for a

1
mishap because it procured its tools from a company reputed for making standard tools. But
the decision of the English Court of Appeal held the owner liable in Taylor v Rover Co. where
the top of a chisel flew off owing to the excessive hardness of the top of the chisel about which
the worker had complained for weeks earlier. The employer was held liable on two grounds.
First, the chisel was defective and secondly it was negligent in not taking immediate action
after receiving the report of the first incident. Section 50 of the Minerals and Minning Acts
states that no company will be granted a licence unless it employs a minning engineer. There
are two cases which the managing engineer should note. They are Wilson & Cylde Coal Co v
English where a worker was injured in the course of his employment and filed a suit against
the company. The company argued that it had done all that it could do by appointing an expert
to take charge of the minning operations. The court held that the duty was imposed on the
company itself and the fact that it delegated the duty to an expert did not exonerate it from
liability.
The fact notwithstanding that the employer –the lessee or mine owner – is held liable does not
exonerate the managing engineer from personal liability of the employer “for offences”
committed by its servants- which obviously include the Engineer, also makes it clear that the
section be construed as exempting any person who actually committed an offence from
liability.
In Grant v National Coal Board, a worker who was injured by a falling stone from the roof as
he travelled on a man haulage bogey. The House of Lords held that the direct danger of a falling
stone or material was the primary object of the law. It has been the view that the case of mining,
the provisions of section 49 of the Mineral (safe minning) regulations imposed strict liability
on the employer.
*More information in the handout on the law of tort
If an engineer employs for instance technologists, technicians and artisans in executing a
project he will be vicariously liable, like any other employer, for any injuries done to other
people in the normal course of their employment.