By Eng. Vaughn Lezama, FAPETT, R.Eng., M.ASCE
Registrar, Board of Engineering of Trinidad and Tobago
CEO & Principal Engineer, Consulting Engineers Associates 2005 Ltd (CEAL)
Understanding the Concept of Standard of Care
In assessing the performance of a professional engineer, one must first understand the concept of the Standard of Care, sometimes referred to as the Duty of Care. This concept defines the benchmark for acceptable professional conduct and technical performance within the engineering profession.
The Standard of Care represents the level of skill, competence, and diligence that a reasonably prudent engineer would exercise under similar circumstances, in the same discipline, and within the same locality. It forms the foundation for determining whether an engineer has acted negligently or fulfilled their professional duty.
When questions arise about an engineer’s responsibility for a structural failure, environmental incident, or project defect, the central inquiry is not whether the outcome was perfect, but whether the engineer met the Standard of Care applicable at the time the service was rendered.
The Engineer’s Duty to Clients and the Public
Engineers are entrusted with responsibilities that directly affect public safety, economic stability, and environmental sustainability. As such, the duty of care extends beyond the client to the wider public who depend on the integrity of engineering works—buildings, bridges, roads, water systems, and other critical infrastructure.
A professional engineer must therefore perform services competently, diligently, and honestly, applying both sound technical knowledge and ethical judgment. In doing so, the engineer is expected to:
- Apply the accepted principles and standards of the profession;
- Exercise reasonable care and skill in analysis, design, supervision, and documentation;
- Keep abreast of current codes, materials, and technological advances; and
- Seek advice or assistance in areas outside their expertise.
Failure to meet these obligations may constitute professional negligence if it can be shown that the engineer’s actions fell below what would reasonably be expected of others in similar circumstances.
Negligence and the Boundary of Acceptable Error
The law recognizes that engineering is not an exact science. While society often expects flawless performance from engineers, perfection is neither reasonable nor legally required. In practice, engineering judgment involves uncertainty, approximation, and reliance on assumptions based on available data and prevailing standards.
As expressed in the ASCE “Guidelines for Forensic Engineering Practice”, edited by Joshua B. Kardon, an engineer is negligent only if he or she fails to exercise the skill and care that a reasonably careful engineer would have exercised in the same situation. This distinction defines the boundary between a non-negligent error and a negligent error.
Non-negligent errors are those that fall within an acceptable range of professional deviation. These are honest mistakes made despite exercising due diligence, such as relying on geotechnical data later found to be inaccurate, or encountering unexpected site conditions.
Negligent errors, however, result from carelessness, disregard for established standards, or failure to act as a prudent engineer would. Examples include:
- Designing without sufficient data or verification;
- Ignoring mandatory codes of practice;
- Failing to review or supervise delegated work adequately; or
- Certifying work known to be unsafe or noncompliant.
The Standard of Care thus does not demand perfection—it demands competence, caution, and accountability.
Locality and Circumstance: Context Matters
An important aspect of determining the Standard of Care is context. The expected level of care may vary depending on:
- The location of practice (urban vs. rural, developed vs. developing region);
- The resources and information available at the time;
- The complexity of the project; and
- The state of practice and technology when the work was performed.
For example, an engineer working in Trinidad and Tobago must adhere to local codes where applicable (e.g. electrical & plumbing), environmental regulations, and material availability, which may differ from those in North America or Europe. A solution that is reasonable and accepted locally may differ from one that would be expected in a different jurisdiction.
This is why the law and professional regulators, including the Board of Engineering of Trinidad and Tobago (BOETT), emphasize contextual reasonableness—evaluating an engineer’s decisions based on what was known and practical at the time of design or construction, not in hindsight after a failure has occurred.
Ethics, Judgment, and Continuing Professional Development
Beyond technical proficiency, adherence to the Code of Ethics is a fundamental component of meeting the Standard of Care. Engineers must act with honesty, impartiality, fairness, and dedication to public welfare. Ethical misconduct—such as conflict of interest, misrepresentation, or concealment of errors—constitutes a breach of professional duty regardless of technical competence.
In today’s rapidly evolving field, continuing professional development (CPD) is also an integral part of maintaining the Standard of Care. New materials, methods, and sustainability requirements are constantly reshaping best practices. The engineer’s obligation includes keeping current with these developments and applying them appropriately to ensure safety, efficiency, and environmental responsibility.
The Board of Engineering of Trinidad and Tobago, together with professional associations such as APETT, emphasizes CPD through structured learning, seminars, and technical certification—ensuring that registered engineers remain competent to meet public expectations and legal obligations.
When the Standard Is Breached
When an engineering failure occurs, courts and expert witnesses typically examine whether the professional met the expected standard. The process involves comparing the engineer’s conduct with what a reasonably careful engineer would have done under similar conditions.
If the evidence shows that the engineer failed to apply reasonable skill or due diligence—such as by ignoring relevant data, misapplying design standards, or neglecting supervision—the engineer may be held liable for negligence. Conversely, if the engineer’s decisions were reasonable based on available information and accepted practice at the time, the error is considered non-negligent, and liability does not arise.
Conclusion: Professional Responsibility and Public Trust
Technical ability alone does not define professionalism. Ethical behavior—honesty, impartiality, fairness, and dedication to public welfare—is central to the Standard of Care. Misrepresentation, conflicts of interest, or concealment of errors undermine public trust and violate professional duty, regardless of technical proficiency.
The Standard of Care therefore, is not merely a legal doctrine—it is the moral and professional compass of engineering practice. It defines the balance between professional autonomy and accountability, between innovation and safety. Engineers are not expected to be infallible, but they are expected to be competent, conscientious, and ethical. The public’s trust in the profession depends on this. Every design, report, and signature carries with it an implicit assurance that the engineer has exercised sound judgment consistent with the highest traditions of professional service.
In the end, maintaining the Standard of Care is not just about avoiding negligence—it is about upholding the integrity of the profession and safeguarding the public interest on which it depends.