論結構計算疏失建築師之連帶責任

Joint Liability of Architects for Structural Engineer's Calculation Errors

Article 13, paragraph 1 of the Building Act and Article 19 of the Architects Act both stipulate: ’’For the professional engineering aspects of building structures and equipment, except for buildings below five stories not intended for public use, they shall be handled by professional industrial engineers registered and engaged in accordance with the law, as designated by the supervising architect, who shall bear joint liability.’’ There are differing interpretations in doctrine and practice regarding the nature and scope of the ’’joint liability’’ borne by architects. This paper explores the ’’Pingzhen Cultural Park Underground Parking Lot Collapse Case’’ that occurred on April 30, 2020, and whether the architect should bear ’’joint liability’’ when damage occurs due to structural calculation errors by the structural engineer, as per the aforementioned provisions. First, let’s delve into the origin of architects’ joint liability, examining the legislative intent of Article 13, paragraph 1 of the Building Act and Article 19 of the Architects Act, as well as the interpretations in doctrine and practice. We’ll analyze the scope of architects’ joint liability, including whether it encompasses administrative, criminal, and civil liabilities. Then, we’ll discuss the legal relationship between the structural engineer and the architect in the Pingzhen case. 1. Is the structural engineer considered an employee of the architect? Centered around Article 224 of the Civil Code, and considering interpretations in doctrine and practice, this examines whether it is necessary for an employer to ’’direct or supervise’’ the debtor, and whether the nature of ’’joint liability’’ under this article falls under ’’liability for fault’’ or ’’statutory liability without fault.’’ The research concludes that the definition of ’’employer’’ in Article 224 of the Civil Code requires direction or supervision by the debtor, and the ’’joint liability’’ referred to in this article should be understood as an expansion of ’’liability for fault’’ rather than ’’statutory liability without fault.’’ Since structural engineers perform their duties independently and professionally, and their certification work is not directed or supervised by architects, structural engineers are not considered employees of architects, and architects are not required to bear joint liability for the structural engineer’s calculation errors. 2. The nature of the contract between the architect and the structural engineer? Centered around Article 529 of the Civil Code, this discusses the nature of the design supervision contract between the principal (Transportation Bureau) and the architect, whether it should be considered a commission contract, a contract for services, a hybrid contract, or a mixed contract. It further examines whether the relationship between the architect and the structural engineer constitutes a legitimate joint commissioning arrangement. The research concludes that the design supervision contract between the principal (Transportation Bureau) and the architect should be considered a hybrid contract combining elements of commission and service contracts, and therefore, the provisions regarding commission contracts under Article 529 of the Civil Code should apply. Additionally, the relationship between the structural engineer and the architect constitutes a legal joint commissioning arrangement. Under Article 538, paragraph 2 of the Civil Code, the architect is responsible for the selection of the structural engineer and for providing instructions to them. Finally, this article proposes suggestions for ’’preventing structural calculation errors’’: 1. Improving the construction permit review mechanism to prevent structural calculation errors: Currently, the Taoyuan City Government has an outsourcing mechanism for public works structural reviews, but the majority of private projects lack an effective mechanism to ensure the structural safety of buildings. 2. Opening up the construction permit review market to establish a ’’structural review’’ mechanism: Currently dominated by a single private organization, it is suggested that the government adopt a diverse and open approach, allowing structural engineering professionals to participate in construction permit reviews. Only then can structural calculation errors be effectively prevented from occurring again.