Playing the blame game

I have just revisited the article ‘Back to Basics’ (CM, July/August 2004) quoting the case of an architect being found guilty for injuries sustained by a builder’s operative when the builder changed from the specified block.

I find the placing of responsibility rather strange. Presumably the architect’s ‘Design Hazard Risk Assessment’ did not highlight a problem because he had chosen a lightweight block. Again I presume that the contractor tendered on a pre-tender Health and Safety Plan, which was drafted accordingly, subsequently producing a construction phase health and safety plan on the same basis.

In attempting to understand the basis of this decision I can only conclude the architect was acting as the planning supervisor and that this case was not based on his function as designer but as planning supervisor. If this is not the situation, then designers will become liable for the consequences of all decisions made by the contractor. Given that the JCT contract allows alternatives to be proposed by the contractor, every designer will have to insist that this facility is removed and force the contractor to install only those items which have been through the Pretender Hazard Risk Assessment.

Am I right in thinking this single sourcing is contrary to EEC regulations? Alternatively, a designer will have to decline any information about contractor changes for fear of being held responsible, and will then have to condemn any installation not as specified!