Can't get away
i DIDN'T SAY THAT YOU, PERSONALLY SUPPORTED A PRACTICE OF RUBBER STAMPING, BUT THAT THE WAY (oops, CAD case, not yelling) you seemed to be interpreting the law, that you could by contract have someone indemnify you and hold you harmless for the liability taken on by your signature on a drawing, report, certificate, etc., could also be the same logic used to support rubberstamping.
Someone claiming that they are simply stamping for another company, that they're not really responsible (responsible = liable) for the work because in the contract with the company the company has agreed to hold the signing LS harmless. Or, someone claiming responsibility only for the analysis and not the fieldwork because the crew of whatever company the LS has contracted with did the work and the LS was not in charge of the crew. "I wasn't actually incharge of the crew, so my signature and certification doesn't cover that part of the job."
Well, if that LS's signature is the only one on the drawing, whether or not he was actually in responsible charge of the fieldwork has no bearing on the fact that he has accepted responsibility for it. If he was not actually in responsible charge, he was simply negligent.
Once you have the license, you are presumed to be the expert at what your capabilities are as a surveyor, what you can accomplish, and how that must be accomplished. The law doesn't give you a break if you allow a client, the client's lender, title company, or attorney intimidate you into practicing in a way you don't believe is proper or into signing a statement or certification not accurately reflective of the facts you've discovered, your opinion of their significance, or your ability as a surveyor to discover and opine on any set of facts. The law presumes that you have the knowledge, could have and should have applied it properly in advising your client, performing the work, and reporting the results.
Can't get away
"The way I read it, your take would OK the practice of rubberstamping for a fee."
Okay then
Can't get away
I am not implying any of the things you suggest. Indemnity is an important part of contract law, there is nothing unsual about professionals asking for and/or giving indemnity in their agreements. I have in mind a very narrow specifc area and I am not suggesting some broad inappropriate application.
Clearly, one cannot prevail with a contract where the professional is indemnified by the client where the professional has screwed up a simple lot survey. I would never suggest such a thing in the first place.
Now it is an entirely different matter where an engineer or surveyor hires another surveyor to be in responsible charge of the client surveyor or engineer's field crew.
If the client's field crew screws up, then the contract responsible charge surveyor is liable. An indemnity clause does not change this fact. When the responsible charge surveyor is sued along with the client surveyor/engineer because of action of the client's field crew, then the client will not sue the contracting surveyor and the client in this case will defend the contracting surveyor. This is a situation between experts.
I do not rubberstamp for a fee and I do not recommend it. But if I ever were to contract out my services to another professional as a RESPONSIBLE CHARGE SURVEYOR, I would not do so unless our agreement contained an indemnity clause to protect me from their errors and ommissions or any actions on THEIR part that results in me getting sued.
Not sure that you read my last post
Why would another professional, like an engineer hire a surveyor? Most often it is to provide a service to their client that they do not have the ability, in-house, to provide. That's where a contract LS comes in.
The ultimate client is in reliance on the survey. If there is an issue with the survey, the indeminification/duty to defend clause helps in that the "client" engineer is on the hook to pay for your defense, and is not then able to pass on corporate liability to you. However, if there is neglignce found to exist in the survey, it will be the LS who is found to be negligent. If there is a charge of negligence assesses against a professional lisence, it will be on the LS's licence, not the engineers. The surveyor cannot offer a defense that he was not in actual responsible charge of the field crew and is therefore not responsible.
I plainly said in my last post that I was not inferring that you were either engaging in or advocating rubberstamping, and I will not now repeat my statements. But if you advocate a reading of the law that would allow the LS to abdicate responsibility for any portion he can show he was not in "actual" responsible charge for, then you would be opening the door for those who would use the law to engage in rubber stamping.
