On 20 Oct 2003 02:03:29 GMT, Dick Carroll wrote:

That's contrary to what was posted some time ago here on this subject.
In fact, I think it was Phil that said that before one can advertise
himself as an engineer or sign off on engineering projects s/he must be
licensed by the state as a Professional Engineer, after taking an
examination, and that to work as an engineer without the PE license is
to risk severe sanctions.

That depends on the state law. In Califoria, there are two levels.
"Title Act" and "Practice Act". There are five specialties
(Electrical. Civil, Mechanical, Petroleum, and Structural) in which
one cannot use the title or do the practice (be in responsible
charge of the work) to the public without being a PE. All the
other specialties are "Practice Act" specialties. Different
employers regard this differently. My wife's employer - the largest
environmental engineering consultant in the world - requires all
engineers to hold PE registration in their specialty from at least
one state to advance beyond the "Junior Engineer" level, and that
all work submitted to a client - public sector or private sector -
be signed and stamped by a PE. Most of their contracts require this
as well.

When it comes to the civil and structural engineers, it is almost
universal that state law requires that the engineer be a registered
PE and also provides a "handle" to "reach" said engineer if the
work is done in a negligent manner. The usual grounds for sanctions
against land surveyers and civil engineers in California is
negligent determination of or failure to file property boundaries.

In general, state statutes also provide a "handle" for the state
registration board to discipline registrants who perform work in a
negligent manner, but a finding of negligence requires a nexus
between the engineer personally and the affected/damaged party - the
complainant.

I have a soninlaw who is a PE (civil engineer) and he took some tests
for the license. I understood that was a profeffional qualification put
in place to protect the public from the inferionr work of unqualified
persons posing as qualified and competent.

According to Phils last post, that was wrong. The publis gets no
protection and the employers can't be held accountble either, unless
there is a prosecutable criminal offense.

You misinterpreted what I said. The employer is always liable for
the misconduct of employees in the course of employment. The
complaint, however, has to be by an affected party (client) or by
the DA if there is a criminal violation involved.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane