1. SOSC 111 - Science Technology and Society Today: Lesson 21 Engineering and the Law November 9, 1998 Dr. Vincent Duffy - IEEM http://www- ieem.ust.hk/dfaculty/duffy/111 email: vduffy@ust.hk 1

2. n Yuen Tat-cheong v. Urban Council u 5:30pm, Shamshuipo, u Mrs. Yuen & son (31/2 years old) u returning from shopping in Shun Hing market u A hawker/vendor fleeing from Duties officials u banged into the boy u a wok of boiling oil fell on the boy’s face u Mrs. Yuen wanted damages from Duties official u Judge decided, though unfortunate, Duties officials were not to blame, not negligent 2

3. What is illustrated here? n The limitations in Tort are illustrated in the case of Mrs. Yuen u boy hurt, but duty officers were not to blame- therefore no compensation to the boy 3

4. n Q.1. What are the limits of Tort Law? n Q.2. Please give an example of the use of ‘law as a weapon’. n Q.3. Please give an example of the use of‘law as a protector’. n Q.4. What do ‘caveat emptor’ and ‘privity of contract’ represent? Attitudes about what? n Q.5. Why is minimum compliance not enough? 4

5. u Limitations on law of tort u law/standards as a weapon u law as protector - balanced outlook on law F how judges/federal agencies interpret the law u definitions and examples n old contract law associated terms such as n minimum compliance revisited 5

6. Law/standards as a weapon n Two ASME volunteers u (American Society of Mechanical Engineers) u interpreted ASME code/standards in a way that Hydrolevel Corporation’s product could not compete w/devices built by the competitor u Only trouble is that the ‘volunteers’ for ASME u were employees of the rival competitor 6

7. Law as protector n balanced outlook on law u sometimes judges/federal agencies interpret the law n Hickel’s law u After offshore oilspills in California 1969 u the spills caused damage to the beaches and sealife u was it the fault of federal authorities for lack of enforcement? u was it the drillers fault for not following laws? 7

8. Hickel’s law: u the drillers argued that they did follow the law and should not be penalized u Hickel, a federal official, interpreted the law differently and was harsh to the drillers u he wanted to get the drillers attention u He was mad at the drillers u He said you have to ‘hit the the polluters hard so they don’t pollute again’ 8

9. Hickel’s Law u that is Hickel’s law : ‘hit the polluters hard so they dont do it again’ u Hickel’s law : gives extra harsh penalty to get attention and avoid others doing the same thing u allows protection for those that can not protect themselves 9

10. Why is Hickel’s law important? u in this case it is protection for the environment and local beaches and sealife u the drillers met the minimum requirement, but the federal officials were still mad about the embarrassment caused to them by the accident u the drillers were penalized many $$. u it is an example of why the minimum compliance is sometimes not enough u other terms for minimum compliance could be: following the minimum standard, minimum law, or minimum requirement 10

11. n Q.4 What are ‘caveat emptor’ and ‘privity of contract’? What attitudes to they represent? u ‘privity of contract’ - if you are not party to a contract you have no rights arising from it u caveat emptor means ‘buyer beware’ F if you enter contract of sound mind, then buy at your risk u old ideas about liability F previously the buyer was limited to action against seller F when did they change? and why? (see reading) F 1916 - General Motors Car Wheel fell off McPherson’s car F also an example of where ‘minimum compliance’ fails 11

12. n Q.5. minimum compliance - what does it mean? u someone follows the law, but doing not more than is required u doing the minimum in order to not break the law, u satisfying the minimum requirement, u following the minimum standard u examples of the Tampa Bay Bridge, Titanic, Hickle’s Law, McPherson case illustrate why the law, or minimum compliance, is not enough u minimum compliance makes companies risk being subject to ‘Hickle’s Law u old attitudes such as ‘buyer beware’ are consistent with thought about following the ‘minimum requirement’ or ‘minimum compliance’ u Old exam 2 posted on webpage today 12