Brief review of a file:
In 1991, a building with a concrete frame was started. It was 1700 meters and had 7 concrete floors. The span of the beams was 10 meters due to the provision of parking. The dimensions of the beam located in the 10-meter span are 40×40 and are weak. In the concreting of the seventh roof, the building collapses from the inside like the twin towers and falls during construction. A worker falls with the debris and dies.
It is clear that during concreting, a 10-meter beam was broken and the structure collapsed. (The worker’s life loss is 200 million tomans and the financial loss is 250 million tomans, a total of 450 million tomans)
Court verdict:
– The accounting engineer takes 50% of the blame because the calculation plans had errors and were designed incorrectly.
– The owner takes 40% of the blame because he did not have a competent executor.
– The supervising engineer takes 10% of the blame because the supervisor did not follow the plans.
In this case, the accounting engineer was a law firm, and there were about 17 or 18 people on the board of directors, and 21 people were employed who were behind a license. The judge demanded the execution of the judgments of the CEO of the accounting company and said that you should pay the damages. The CEO engineer said, I have stamped these plans, but under these plans Mr. Engineer X has stamped and signed them. Mr. Engineer X is a member of the board of directors. With these reasons and with the description of this issue, the percentage of damage was divided between the company’s members. According to the civil law, in this type of incidents, the cause is divided based on the effectiveness of the elements:
Elements of law firms:
1- The law firm itself
2- The CEO: takes 10% of the blame.
3- authorized signatories
4- The board of directors: 40% is to blame. (Accounting engineer X was part of the board of directors, and his seal and signature were at the bottom of the drawings.)
5- Employees
6- Partners
Following the statements of the CEO, the accountant engineer is called to the court, the accountant says that I have a contract that I have no responsibility and says that this signature and seal are fake. His reasons are not accepted by the expert panel. Of course, during the investigation, it is proven that a cartographer prepared this map, and the final vote changes as follows:
• CEO of accounting company 10%
• Cartographer 10%
• Accounting engineer 30%
• Supervisor 10%
• 40% owner
This post is written by None