If that were true, then there would be zero disasters in high liability countries. liability doesn’t prevent disasters from happening. For example: UK Grenfall

If that were true, then there would be zero disasters in high liability countries. liability doesn’t prevent disasters from happening. For example: UK Grenfall towers. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-61724373 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-61724373 It is a wrong to assume that only engineers can cause deadly mistakes. Also we have penal liabilities that don’t need licensing: The [UK] Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 is designed to stop employers putting the public at risk, not just employees in the workplace. Individuals can be prosecuted and a serious breach could attract a two-year prison sentence. And sometimes some pretty big exceptions: the [UK] government can't be prosecuted for corporate manslaughter Locally to me in Christchurch, New Zealand, there have been no prosecution for the CTV tower collapse: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/fatal-ctv-building-collapse-police-complete-criminal-investigation/ASPACLQEHJD3KCGVA36MHKNHNM/ https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/fatal-ctv-building-collapse-po... https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/govt-considering-introducing-corporate-manslaughter-law-to-enable-ctv-prosecution/JGZXZODGTUGUEMW3YYOVHT4NDY/ https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/govt-considering-introdu... The second link is interesting because it looks at changing the law to add liability (not engineers licensing changes ) In both cases, there are multiple layers of failure, and many causes could be asssigned. Especially the CTV building with inspections before collapse and warnings from people working there ignored.