Reference no: EM133256910

Question: The City of St. Catharines needed to build a bridge. They hired Engineers Inc. to draw up the necessary plans for the bridge. When the calculations and designs were complete, they put the job out for tender and hired Corners Construction to build the bridge. The construction of the bridge began and the foreman of Corners Construction, Joe, called the City to tell them that if they changed the back-fill product, which he felt was "overkill", to a cheaper alternative the job could be completed faster and cut down on costs. The City called Engineers Inc. to verify that this change would not be a problem and were told that the engineer assigned to this case, Brad, would get back to them. Time was of the essence so both the City and Joe repeatedly called the engineering firm to ask if a decision had been made yet. Brad felt a lot of pressure and so instead of running ALL of the numbers again for the job, he approved the substituted backfill product after a few preliminary calculations.•Less than six months later the footings of the bridge were deteriorating because the backfill product was not draining quickly enough and the pooling water was causing damage to the bridge's structure. (A problem that would have been avoided if they had not cut corners and had used the correct backfill)

How would you evaluate Brad's professional liability in this case? Apply your evaluation "tool" to what you know from the case.