accident by GC negligence...

[hnQ_9999]

3.18.2 said: "It is not unsual for an injured worker to seed redress from the owner or architect, since statutory compensation awards are typically rather low.
This section (3.18.2) makes it clear that such compensational awards should not be construed to limit the contractors indemnity obligation to
to the payment of statutory worker's compensation benefits in the event the owner or architects is found liable for the accidents due to the contractor's negligence."

Before going the maze of legal bolero/tango on the preface of the above, can someone please give me
an real life example of when "the owner or architects is found liable for the accidents due to the
contractor's negligence" ? I scratched my head MANY times...When the contractor IS found
negligent, then IT IS the contractor's liability, isn't that right ?

[Coach]

When a dangerous situation is observed but not reported.

[hnQ_9999]

Coach, I scratched my head reading your answer.
Architect visits the site ONLY to get familiar with the Work, report Work progress and CD compliance to Owner.
Whether he/she observes the Work or not, being reported to or not by GC,...GC is the point source for safety on the site, hence GC be responsible.
Now, if accident happens NOT because of safety negligence,...that is what I need a real life example (to get this sticks in my brain).

[Coach]

If an architect observes an unsafe condition on a building site and does nothing about it, that's negligence.

[hnQ_9999]

Hello Coach, I believe this being discussed here many, many times before...
However, I scanned A201/102, and found no liability biding to Architect re. "site safety" nor
"observe unsafe condition". I believe it is indeed, a citizen code of conduct or
professional code of conduct, but not under A201 nor A102.
AHPP said, to be liable with negligence, it has to follow Duty-Breach-Cause-Damage(I think).
There is no duty in A201/102 that ties Architect to such condition, at the first line of defense.

In your example, the unsafe condition exists before the Architect seeing it, so it falls back to GC responsible
for safety in the fist place (and still, I can't find an example of anything happens beyond safety net,
except for earthquake). What registered in Architec's mind as unsafe condition IS also argue-able.

Speaking of Act of God, AOG, I have another question: "What are the common AOG being covered
under Property Insurance should I be assuming in the test, given that Owner did purchase it ?
I learned somewhere that act of terrorism is being considered Act of...another God,
and NOT being covered under Property Insurance, ha.

[Coach]

http://www.risk-admin.com/Library/PDFs/ ... dments.pdf

Read the 5th commandment.