CE 401 Civil Engineering Seminar Nice Guys Finish Lastjrchee0/CE 401 OLD (No... · Nice Guys Finish...

CE 401 Civil Engineering Seminar Nice Guys Finish Last

•Quiz 2: 5 Questions-10 minutes max. •Quiz 1 Scores:

•18 Max, 4 Min, 12.1 Average – This Semester •20 Max, 4 Min, 12.4 Average - Historic

•Announcements (Next Week) •Do Values and Behavior Survey, HO Pack 96-97

•Review of Tactics/Affects of whistle blowing •Updates on Nice Guy Cases-Hanford, and Alaska •Hyatt Regency - Slides

CE 401 Civil Engineering Seminar Hyatt Regency, Kansas City

NICE GUYS FINISH LAST, •ABOUT WHISTLE BLOWERS-Ask while you watch

•What lessons can we take from this program?


NICE GUYS FINISH LAST, •ABOUT WHISTLE BLOWERS-While you watch, ASK:

•What lessons can we take from this program? •The retribution is so consistent it must be taught



•What lessons can we take from this program? •The retribution is so consistent it must be taught •Might Makes Right



•What lessons can we take from this program? •The retribution is so consistent it must be taught •Might Makes Right •No Place In The World To Hide




•What Tactics did the targets use against the whistle blowers?




•What Tactics did the targets use against the whistle blowers? •How do these tactics affect the Whistle Blowers?


NICE GUYS FINISH LAST CASE UPDATES •Hanford Nuclear Processing Facility Environmental Issues:


NICE GUYS FINISH LAST CASE UPDATES •Hanford Nuclear Processing Facility Update: •Alaska Pipe Line Update:


WHISTLE BLOWERS PAY THE PRICE •Engineering Times, Nov 94, Molly Galvin article:

•John Smith Case •Bill Jones Case


HYATT REGENCY FAILURE •Negligence Law Overview:(To Put in Context)


HYATT REGENCY FAILURE •Negligence Law Overview:(To Put Case in Context)

•Four Elements, all must be proven for negligence



•Four Elements, all must be proven for negligence •Duty Owed (to injured party)



•Four Elements, all must be proven for negligence •Duty Owed (to injured party) •Duty Breached (by the defendant party)



•Four Elements, all must be proven for negligence •Duty Owed (to injured party) •Duty Breached (by the defendant party) •Causal Link Between Breach and Damages



•Four Elements, all must be proven for negligence •Duty Owed (to injured party) •Duty Breached (by the defendant party) •Causal Link Between Breach and Damages •Real Damages




•Negligence occurs with “Absence of Reasonable Care”




•Negligence occurs with “Absence of Reasonable Care” •What would a reasonably prudent person have done?




•Negligence occurs with “Absence of Reasonable Care” •What would a reasonably prudent person have done? •Is a Reasonable Person Standard for conduct


HYATT REGENCY FAILURE •Negligence vs Gross Negligence:



•All Elements of Negligence plus conduct so egregious that a Jury finds:



•All Elements of Negligence plus conduct so egregious that a Jury finds

•Callous disregard for the well being of others




•:Reckless disregard for the well being of others •A Failure To Use Even Slight Care




•:Reckless disregard for the well being of others •A Failure To Use Even Slight Care

•Professionals seldom lose licenses due to negligence




•:Reckless disregard for the well being of others •Extreme Carelessness •A Failure To Use Even Slight Care

•Professionals seldom lose licenses due to negligence •Engineers in Hyatt Case Lost License based on findings of Gross Negligence


HYATT REGENCY FAILURE •How old was the facility when the collapse occurs


HYATT REGENCY FAILURE •How old was the facility when the collapse occurs •Why did the skywalks collapse?


HYATT REGENCY FAILURE •How old was the facility when the collapse occurs •Why did the skywalks collapse? Change from single rod support system to a double rod system, doubling shear at the 3rd floor level.


HYATT REGENCY FAILURE •Why did the skywalks collapse? Change from single rod support system to a double rod system, doubling shear at the 3rd floor level. •Was there negligence? By Whom?



•Duty is owed to anyone foreseeably injured by act



•Duty is owed to anyone foreseeably injured by act •Duty Breached as evidence by the shear condition that violates code, and skywalks were going to fail



•Duty is owed to anyone foreseeably injured by act •Duty Breached as evidence by the shear condition that violates code, and skywalks were going to fail, and •Failure resulted in REAL DAMAGE: Loss of life, Injuries, and Economic damages to owner, employees, etc.


HYATT REGENCY FAILURE •Was there negligence? By Whom?

•Duty is owed to anyone foreseeably injured by act •Duty Breached as evidence by the shear condition that violates code, and skywalks were going to fail, and •Failure resulted in real damages, loss of life, injuries, and economic damages to owner, employees, etc.

•Assume all parties satisfy these elements, Owner, Architect, Structural Engineer, Contractor, etc., which ones also satisfy the causation element?


HYATT REGENCY FAILURE •Assume all parties satisfy these elements, Owner, Architect, Structural Engineer, Contractor, etc., which ones also satisfy the causation element?

•Two Tests for causation: Factual Causation and Legal Causation

•Factual Causation: But for the breach, the injuries would not have occurred. •Legal Causation: Were the injuries reasonably foreseeable to the defendant at the time he acted?


HYATT REGENCY FAILURE •Factual Causation Exists for Contractor, Owner, and Designers:

•But For the Contractor’s request to change to double rod, this collapse would not occur. True. •But For the Architect’s approval of the change to double rods, this failure would not occur. True •But For the Structural Engineer’s failure to analyze the double rod system before approving the shop drawing, this failure would not have occurred. True


HYATT REGENCY FAILURE •Legal Causation Exists only for the Structural Engineers:

•Was it reasonably foreseeable to the contractor that a request to change to double rods would result in failure? No, because others had the duty to analyze it and approve it, not the contractor. •Was it reasonably foreseeable to the Architect that his approval of the change would result in failure? No, because the structural engineer had presumably analyzed and approved it, and the architect had no independent duty to analyze the system. •Was it reasonably foreseeable to the Structural Engineer that his approval of double rods without any analysis could result in failure? Yes.


HYATT REGENCY FAILURE •Slides provided by the Kansas City Star via Fred Wickman •Someone presented him/herself to a KC Star reporter at the scene on the night of the collapse with information about the cause of the collapse •This informant pointed the reporter toward the approved shop drawing to find the cause of the collapse


HYATT REGENCY FAILURE •As you watch, think about this informant:

•What did this person know? •When did this person first know this? •How would anyone acquire this knowledge? •What training/expertise is necessary to understand the significance of the information on the shop drawing? •Who would be in position to acquire this knowledge


HYATT REGENCY FAILURE •Slide Presentation:

•Slides provided by the Kansas City Star who won a Pulitzer prize for their coverage of this failure. •One reason they won that prize is information the paper received from a whistle blower the night of the failure.

Date post:	17-Oct-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

CE 401 Civil Engineering Seminar Nice Guys Finish Lastjrchee0/CE 401 OLD (No... · Nice Guys Finish...

Documents