Come on, do you really think that the courts have changed the jury instruction they have been using for years for determining the standard of care for a profession just because 921 has been published?

If you have read my posting on the subject, I have said numerous times I have not been able to find where the question as to the standard of care for the fire investigator has never been address in a court case. Wow, I had no idea the legal system has changed their requirement for all professions because of 921. This document is getting better and better. I believe you know the law on this subject just as good as I do, to the fact that the question as to what the standard of care is for a specific profession does not come up until the question of negligence is alleged. I will say it again, I do not know of a case where the negligence of a fire investigator has been litigated. I know you are aware of a case where you inferred an investigator did not act properly on the preservation of evidence based on 921, but the court found there was no duty owed you client in that case by the investigator. Would you like to see this issue come up to address this issue?

The statement I used as to the jury instructions was taken in part from a paper presented by Dr. Joshua Kardon at the Online Ethics Center 1999 International Conference on Ethics in Engineering and Computer Science. I understand he might not be up to some of our standards but he is a structural engineer that has been in continuous practice since 1973 and established Joshua B. Kardon + Company in 1978. He has the following degrees, B.S., Civil Engineering, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY, 1971, M.S., Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 1997, and a Ph.D., Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 2003. Is 1999 past 1992? Do you still think his comment is irrelative as compared to the standard of care instructions for a jury as it relates to just our profession or the jury instruction for the standard of care for all professions?

Now, so there is no complaint about me intentionally attempting to mislead the readers, I posted, “In performing professional services for a client, a investigator has the duty to have that degree of learning and skill ordinarily possessed by reputable investigators, practicing in the same or similar locality and under similar circumstances. It is investigator’s further duty to use the care and skill ordinarily used in like cases by reputable members of the profession practicing in the same or similar locality under similar circumstances, and to use reasonable diligence and investigator’s best judgment in the exercise of professional skill and in the application of learning, in an effort to accomplish the purpose for which the investigator was employed.” In a later posting I admitted that I replaced the words structural engineer with fire investigator to see how people would react to something accepted by a different profession.

Hurray, we agree on something. Is the world coming to an end? I agree, as I have said many times the courts are embracing the methodology (scientific method) suggested in 921 in evaluating how an investigation is conducted. I have no problem with this and agree the scientific method can be the measuring stick for investigations but not the document as a hole. Is this an improvement?

At least I answer your questions; I think Steve is still waiting on his answer.