But can they/it be Trusted???

Was it Donald Rumsfield who said that there are “known knowns”, “known unknowns”, and “unknown unknowns”? Well, we all know that the world has moved on from there, and we now also have “false facts”: perhaps to be known as “unknown knowns”? How about these examples:

1. The latest product causing grief in the Auckland Market is the K3T wall panel which has reportedly lead to failures sufficient to require two homes in Northland to be pulled down. Those of us who were skeptical of the new cladding products of the 1980’s and 1990’s were proven right when the leaky building crisis exploded on us. There is (still) a lesson here: you can’t always believe what you read! Just because there are fancy pictures and seemingly authoritative statements, you are still required to use prudent professional judgement. Do not doubt that you will be in the front line if your innovative use of new materials ends up in tears and pointy fingers.
2. A recent claim involved a cautious member’s design of remediation works. It was a limited retainer to provide a design for partial works to the specific instructions of the project manager. The project manager held himself out as an authority in such matters and was accordingly part of the chain of responsibility for the outcomes. Later, when that work also failed, both the member and the project manager were in the line of fire. And here it becomes interesting: on legal advice, the member was considered vulnerable mostly because the project manager was incompetent! Despite doing what he was told to, the member also had a duty to apply professional standards, and those standards could not be met by his merely following the project manager’s instructions.
3. A client, knowledgeable and experienced in building matters, and responsible for the work being done on site by his company, failed to spot an ambiguity between the member’s section drawings and plan drawings; the member had no involvement in the construction, and the as-built outcome followed Murphy’s Law. You might – quite reasonably – expect the client/builder to have had a duty to seek clarification of an obvious error that needed resolution before construction, but they thought otherwise, and instead sought the costs of rebuilding the work. (Once upon a time, drawings always had the simple note “If in doubt, Ask”. Perhaps that was not so silly after all?)
4. We have had many claims arising out of “unknown unknowns” despite apparently reliable documentation of existing subgrade services: Electrical supplies to parts of the city downed by pile drivers; endless volumes of concrete poured into excavations because it was also filling unknown drains; expensive foundation redesign required to avoid drains which were not where they were supposed to be……...
5. A recent business opportunity has been presented along the lines of the client making a few mouse clicks to get instant access to professional advice and paying online for only the limited contact time. You – a potential advisor - have visions of getting premium fees for having your brains picked without having to work routine hours out of an “office”. Sounds too good to be true? Probably! Before you get excited by the prospect, think about the relationship between fees and liability: you are potentially giving key advice for a limited fee but taking on no less risk than you would if you were in a more formal client engagement. If that is in relation to domestic/residential work, your liability might be unlimited. Worse, you have probably nil opportunity to control how your advice is implemented, and it is unlikely that the facilitator/software provider will take any responsibility. Perhaps the NZRAB might also inquire whether the terms of your engagement meet their criteria?