What legal liability does one&#39;s participation on Stack Exchange carry?
<p>This question is motivated by a question which came up recently on engineering.SE: <a href="https://engineering.stackexchange.com/questions/3186/cracks-on-the-wall">Cracks on the wall</a>.  It may be closed in the future so I will summarize.  The user posted pictures of (very large) cracks in the wall of his house and asked the community "could you please advice to do continue the construction as per proper standard or I have demolish the house and re-built again?"</p>

<p>A <a href="http://www.nspe.org/resources/licensure/what-pe" rel="noreferrer">professional engineer</a> advising this individual under the auspices of a hired firm would have certain legal obligations to the correctness of their opinion.  If one were to advise this individual in a way that led to him living in an unsafe structure on Stack Exchange, what legal repercussions could they face?</p>

<p>In particular, is there any legal precedent (read prior court case) which absolves freely offered online advice from liability?</p>

<p>I imagine that under English and Welsh law, the relevant tort would negligent misstatement, as there is no contract between the parties. From <a href="http://uk.practicallaw.com/2-379-9503">Practical Law</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>A claim for negligent misstatement may arise whether or not a contractual relationship exists between the parties. However, if there is a contractual relationship, it is more likely that a claim would be brought for negligent misrepresentation.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Whether or not a claim for negligent misstatement would succeed would depend on several factors. Firstly, a duty of care must exist between the parties. From the Oxford <a href="http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110810105454835">Dictionary of Law</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>A negligent misstatement is only actionable in tort if there has been breach of a duty to take care in making the statement that has caused damage to the claimant. There is no general duty of care in making statements, particularly in relation to statements on financial matters. Responsibility for negligent misstatements is imposed only if they were made in circumstances that made it reasonable to rely on them (<em>Hedley Byrne v Heller &amp; Partners Ltd</em> [1964] AC 465 (HL); <em>Caparo Industries plc v Dickman</em> [1990] 2 AC 605 (HL).</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Whether or not it was reasonable to rely on the advice is hard to say, as it depends on a number of different factors. In the light of the fact that most cases of negligent misstatement involve professionals acting in their professional capacity, it seems unlikely that a court would find it reasonable to rely on advice taken from an internet site.</p>

<p>Most relevant for this question, however, is the case of <em>Gary Patchett and Karen Patchett v Swimming Pool &amp; Allied Trades Association Ltd</em>  [2009] EWCA Civ 717. This is possibly the legal precedent you are looking for. <a href="http://uk.practicallaw.com/2-379-9503">Practical Law</a> again:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The Court of Appeal held by a majority that, although the website made representations that it knew users would be likely to rely on, there was not sufficient proximity between the parties, and the website advised users to obtain an information pack before engaging a contractor. Accordingly, the appellants had failed to establish the duty of care that is a required element of a claim for negligent misstatement.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>If a website owner does not owe a duty of care to its users, then it seems highly unlikely that one user would be found to owe a duty of care to another user. </p>

<p>On that basis - and with the large disclaimer that I am not a lawyer - it would seem that were one to rely on the advice given on a StackExchange site, there would be few, if any, legal repercussions for the person who gave the advice. The conclusion is to get professional advice from a professional, rather than any StackExchange site - including this one!</p>

<p>The law is entirely dependent on the jurisdiction. Assuming that we are dealing with a common-law country like Australia, the UK or the US then liability can arise from three sources: the contract, statutory liability and the tort of negligence.</p>

<p><strong>Contract</strong></p>

<p>Well, no valuable consideration was made for the advice so there is no contract.</p>

<p><strong>Statute</strong></p>

<p>There may be laws in the relevant jurisdiction (which could be the jurisdiction of the asker, the answerer, the site (virtual or actual) or any/all of these) which impose a liability on the answerer. If this is an obligation to be read into a contract then see above. If this is a duty owed to the State, then it would generally be for the state to prosecute either criminally or civilly.</p>

<p>It may be a breach of a code of ethics of the professional's association; in some jurisdictions this may be a mandatory code with civil or criminal penalties, in others a matter for the association alone.</p>

<p>It is possible for the statute to work the other way and protect the advice giver - various Good Samaritan type Acts do this for people rendering medical aid at the scene of an accident for example.</p>

<p><strong>Negligence</strong></p>

<p>In order to establish negligence as a Cause of Action under the law of torts, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant:</p>

<ol>
<li>had a duty to the plaintiff,</li>
<li>breached that duty by failing to conform to the required standard of conduct (generally the standard of a reasonable person),</li>
<li>the negligent conduct was the cause of the harm to the plaintiff, and</li>
<li>the plaintiff was, in fact, harmed or damaged.</li>
</ol>

<p>I would say:</p>

<ol>
<li>is certainly arguable - by <em>choosing</em> to answer the professional may be accepting a duty,</li>
<li>will be a matter of fact and degree - did the professional conform to the required standard of conduct , specifically, what is a reasonable standard of conduct given the nature of the forum; on the face of it this would appear to be lower then, say, a paid commission,</li>
<li>there would need to be a nexus between the advice offered and the harm caused, and</li>
<li>Something bad has to actually happen.</li>
</ol>

<p>In light of my own answer:</p>

<p><strong>Disclaimer:</strong> The above advice is general in nature and may not be relied upon for any purpose.</p>

<p>This answer provides some highlight into this topic, but it is related only to Massachusetts (USA) PEs. For any other state or country, look up the rules. But it follows this: </p>

<p>The MA PE board posted that the one of the Basis for Discipline is: </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>(1) The Board may initiate disciplinary action against a Registrant or
  an unlicensed individual or entity on its own or upon written
  complaint of any individual who alleges violation of any law or
  regulation within the Board's jurisdiction, including but not limited
  to M.G.L. c. 112, §§ 61 through 65E, 81D through 81T and 250 CMR.</p>
  
  <p>(2) The Board may, after a consent agreement between the parties or an
  opportunity for adjudicatory proceedings conducted pursuant to M.G.L.
  c. 30A, discipline a Registrant if it is determined that the
  Registrant has engaged in, without limitation to, the following types
  of conduct:</p>
  
  <p>(a) misconduct or any crime involving moral turpitude; fraud; deceit;
  incompetence; negligence; or exceeding the authorized scope of their
  registration; [<a href="http://www.mass.gov/ocabr/licensee/dpl-boards/en/regulations/rules-and-regs/250-cmr-700.html" rel="nofollow"><a href="http://www.mass.gov/ocabr/licensee/dpl-boards/en/regulations/rules-and-regs/250-cmr-700.html" rel="nofollow">1</a></a>]</p>
</blockquote>

<p><a href="https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXVI/Chapter112/Section61" rel="nofollow">MGL Chapter 112 Section 61</a> states that:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>A board of registration under the supervision of the division of
  professional licensure may discipline the holder of a license,
  certificate, registration or authority issued pursuant to this chapter
  or chapters 141 and 142 if it is determined, after a consent agreement
  between the parties or after an opportunity for an adjudicatory
  proceeding conducted pursuant to chapter 30A, that such holder has:</p>
  
  <p>(1) engaged in conduct <strong>which places into question the holder’s
  competence to practice the profession</strong> including, but not limited to,
  gross misconduct; practicing the profession fraudulently; practicing
  his profession beyond the authorized scope of his license,
  certificate, registration or authority; practicing the profession with
  gross incompetence; or practicing the profession with negligence on 1
  or more than 1 occasion;</p>
</blockquote>

<p>That being said, the PE can be held liable for any thing they recommend, espiclially if it is well documented, and it clearly states that their recommendation is really wrong. For the above example, where the SE user asked about cracks in the wall - I would sound an opinion, but would suggest to go and seek an in-person inspection. Especially that later on on MGL 126/61  it is stated that the board commite is not limited:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Nothing in this section shall be deemed a limitation on a board’s
  authority to impose such reasonable sanctions as it deems appropriate
  by the board after a hearing or by a consent agreement. A person
  sanctioned under this section shall be subject to such other sanctions
  or punishment provided by law. The boards shall promulgate such rules
  and regulations not inconsistent with chapter 30A as necessary for the
  filing of charges and the conduct of proceedings.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Lastly, if you are an engineer, be responsbile for what you claim, some stuff can hurt, others can kill. Be careful in what you recommend and in what you offer. I am not a lawyer, but am an engineer. I wouldn't recommend that guy to live in that house anyhow, because to me it looks unsafe. But hey, it is only my opinion, and take on it... </p>

internet liability