3 ms·
One issue I see is that many (most?) such certifying organizations exclude themselves from having liability when they fail. In some use cases, I think exploring
by mrandish 5y ago
One issue I see is that many (most?) such certifying organizations exclude themselves from having liability when they fail. In some use cases, I think exploring alternatives may yield a better blend of trade-offs. One example would be insurance-based approaches which incentivize more accurately pricing risk.
- cratermoon 5y ago> certifying organizations exclude themselves from having liability when they fail That's convenient. The organizations assert that they can tell certified persons what's allowed and not, but if the certified person follows all the rules and something still goes sideways, the license ends up being worthless, because they can't say, "I did it this way because that's what the standards I'm required to adhere to say"? As a programmer (who gets titled "software engineer" whether I liked it or not) this is terrible. What incentive would I have for getting a license if it doesn't protect me from liability?
- jacckat8 5y agoWhen you get your Professional Engineering license. You also get the PE stamp which allows you to approve public projects. When you give your stamp of approval on a project then you're legally liable for it. You can be sued for incompetence. Then, you have to go to court and defend yourself. Or, more commonly, your company will send a lawyer but you still may be called to testify.