LAWFUL ENGINEERING
Legal Responsibilities of Engineers in the State of Texas
Seamus Stegenga
MEEN 381-506
March 25, 2015
Introduction
This paper will discuss the legal requirements of engineers, both those in criminal law and tort law.
Because the 10th amendment protects states’ rights to form civil law codes, each state has different civil
law codes. This paper will only discuss requirements in the state of Texas1.
Criminal Law
The Texas Constitution and Statutes specifies many laws which must be followed, most of which have no
special significance to engineers. Several laws might be applicable to engineering projects on a case by
case basis, for example, laws concerning manslaughter might be relevant in extreme circumstances. One
law in particular is directly relevant to engineers: the Texas Engineering Practices Act.
TEPA
In 1965, the Texas state legislature enacted Chapter 1001 of the Occupations Code, also known as the
Texas Engineering Practices Act. TEPA requires that practicing engineers obtain a license before offering
engineering services to the public. In order to obtain a license, an engineer needs to be engaged in
continuing education activities, submit a yearly fee, and defend their designs against any complaints
submitted to an advisory board. A license will be suspended if the engineer is found to be grossly
negligent, incompetent, or deceitful. If an engineer offers their services to the public without a license,
they can be fined up to $3,000 per day (§139.35).
The intent of TEPA is to protect the public against risks posed by sub-par engineering, which it attempts
to achieve by mandating that engineers act ethically and competently. TEPA does not, however, provide
protection against risks posed to individuals. Engineers who act unethically towards a customer can have
their license revoked, preventing them from offering services to the public, but TEPA provides no
recourse for the slighted customer. This limits the usefulness of TEPA. In addition to this limitation, TEPA
contains several exceptions which prevent its requirements from being applied to many engineers.
Exemptions
Several classes of persons are exempt from the licensure requirement (Texas TEPA), including qualified
scientists (§59), architects (§63), land surveyors (§64), as well as engineers who are employed by a
license holder (§52), the federal government (§54), a utility company (§58), a telephone company (§61),
an institution of higher learning (§65), NASA (§66), or a fire department (§67). Additionally, several types
of engineering projects do not require approval by a licensed engineer2. These exceptions are significant,
covering the majority of engineering work performed in Texas; around 80% of degreed engineers do not
go on to obtain a professional license (Musselman).
1
Though civil law varies from state to state, the majority of tort principles mentioned here are covered in the UCC,
which has been ratified by every state other than Louisiana.
2
Individual projects do not require a licensed engineer if they are public works with expenses less than $8,000
(§53), are work done on engines, steam boilers, refrigeration systems, or air conditioning equipment (§55), are
private dwellings (§56), are projects which will not be accessed by the public (§57), are water conservation projects
(§60), are works based on an engineer’s plans (§62), or are oil and gas land evaluations (§68).
Clearly, then, TEPA does not fully describe the legal responsibilities of engineers. TEPA is only applicable
to a minority of engineers, but there are other responsibilities which are applicable to all engineering
projects. These responsibilities are laid out in tort law.
Tort Law
The duties of an engineer under tort law are separated into three distinct categories: contractual
obligations, negligence claims, and breaches of warranty. Each type is defined under common law and
therefore subject to interpretation by a judge, which means the merits of engineering acts must be
decided on a case-by-case basis.
Unlike criminal law, a violation of tort law does not automatically mean an engineer is punished. The
punishment only occurs if the violation causes damage and the recipient of the damages decides to sue
the engineer. Also unlike criminal law, for which violations are met with standard punishments, torts
may be punished with a variety of penalties. Tort penalties typically include injunctions and/or fines,
covering a wide range of monetary values.
Contractual Obligations
Engineering services are generally governed by contracts which define the duties of each party. They
may also stipulate penalties which the engineer must pay if their design fails. For this reason, it is
common for engineering firms to obtain professional insurance before accepting projects; some clients
will refuse to do business with engineers that do not have insurance. The enforcement of contracts is
handled by the civil court system; and in general, an engineer can expect to be sued if they violate a
contract.
Negligence
In order for an engineer to be sued for negligence, three requirements must be satisfied (Holub). The
first requirement is that the engineer must owe a duty to the person to whom they provided services.
Unless waived by a contract, the engineer has a duty to act in good faith, to ensure that their customer
is reasonably informed, and to provide services using reasonably good judgement (Cornell). The second
requirement to be sued is that one of these duties must be breached. For example, if the engineer fails
to inform the customer of safety hazards inherent in a design, they have breached their duty and are
liable to be sued. The third requirement is that the breach of duty must cause damage. This damage
could be loss of property, physical damage to a person, harm to a business, or any other negative
impact. In the event that the breach causes loss of life, the engineer may be sued for wrongful death.
In addition to professional negligence, an engineer can also be sued for premises liability. Under this
doctrine, a person can be sued for failing to protect persons from known dangers on their property
(Laird). Though the doctrine applies to all Texans, it is especially applicable to engineers because of their
greater knowledge of potential dangers. For example, a structural engineer might be expected to
recognize a building which is dangerously close to collapsing where a member of the general public
might be excused for overlooking it. Engineers must therefore be more careful managers of their
property than ordinary citizens.
Warranty
Unless expressly disclaimed, every product in Texas is sold with implied warranties. Among other things,
these warranties guarantee that the product is “fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are
used” (Texas BCC). This warranty means that any item – be it blueprints, instructions, technical
documents, or finished products – must adequately serve their intended purpose. If a set of engineering
drawings are missing key components, for example, then the engineer is liable for any damaged incurred
due to the faulty drawings.
Additionally, there is a requirement that products must be made as safe as possible. In the event that a
product causes damage, the seller and/or designer may be sued if there was a safer alternative design
which was economically and technologically feasible (Texas CPRC). It is therefore important for
engineers to consider alternatives while designing products. Engineers must not choose the first solution
that comes to mind or else they will risk overlooking a safer design and making themselves liable to
lawsuits.
Summary
The legal responsibilities of engineers are defined by two sets of laws: criminal law and tort law. The
primary source of criminal law code is the Texas Engineering Practices Act, which required that
engineers offering their services to the public undergo continuing education, submit annual registration,
and be pass the professional engineering exam. However, numerous exceptions to TEPA limit its
effectiveness, and the law does not apply to the majority of engineering performed in Texas.
Under tort law, engineers face responsibilities from three sources. The first is contracts which they
agreed to, which may specify any number of requirements which must be met. The second is negligence
liability, which specifies that products and services be sold and performed in good faith, in reasonably
good judgement, and to an informed customer. Negligence liability also extends to property law,
specifying that engineers must take steps to mitigate dangers on their property that they knew or should
have known about. The third source of responsibilities is warranty law. In Texas, it is assumed that
products are fit for the typical purpose for which they are sold, and products are made as safely as
possible. If products are not made to these standards, the seller and/or designer is in violation of tort
law.
Together, criminal law and tort law form a basis that guides engineers and their products. Engineers
must be honest and competent, and their solutions must be safe and effective. Depending on the
circumstances, other requirements may exist for certain projects, but these general requirements are
applicable to all projects.
References
Cornell University Law School: Legal Information Institute. Duty of Care. n.d. Web. 19 March 2015.
Holub, Cynthia. Theories of Liability Against Design Professionals. 20 February 2012. 19 March 2015.
Laird, Steven. "A Quick Cruise Through Personal Injury Causes of Action in Texas." 20 February 2003. Law
Offices of Steven C. Laird. Web. 19 March 2015.
Musselman, Craig. The 80% Myth in the Engineering Profession. 13 September 2010. Web. 19 March
2015.
Texas BCC, Texas Legislative Council. "Business and Commerce Code." 1 September 1967. Texas
Constitution and Statutes. Web. 19 March 2015.
Texas CPRC, Texas Legislative Council. "Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code." 1 September 1993.
Texas Constitution and Statutes. Web. 20 March 2015.
Texas TEPA, Texas Legislative Council. "The Texas Engineering Practice Act." 28 June 2014. Texas
Constitution and Statutes. Web. 19 March 2015.