Negligence, Negligence, Negligence!!!

[PLS7393]

I'm so tired of surveyors wanting to cry negligence on another surveyor just because they interpret something difference.
Over the past 5-10 years it has gotten out of control, and what ever happened to ones Professional Opinion?
Last time I checked, a RS and CR is just that, our professional opinion! If you disagree, go do your own survey and file "Your Opinion".

Inconsistent interpretation between Northern and Southern CA surveyors is way too common, and the majority of us know there is a difference in Standard of Practice between the North and South. Is it because technology has made it more simple to calculate coordinates, and remove a surveyor's professional opinion? I'm beginning to see more and more of this and now the younger surveyors see it, so they continue with that attitude.

Wake up folks as it is my opinion this is just another example why surveyor's are killing the profession from within.

[mpallamary]

Agreed!

[mpallamary]

The function of CLSA is to establish uniformity across the state. We all operate under the same laws.

[CBarrett]

That in part falls under what "Emotional Intelligence" book covers.
Psychological concept is called "Fundamental Attribution error"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundament ... tion_error

In simplified terms, people tend to assume the worst of those who are perceived as 'outsiders'.

Part of professional responsibility and ethics is to try and understand our subjective biases and employ logic to see past them. Most Surveyors without significant course exposure to general education required for B.S. or B.A. degrees have little to no training in this.

We also don't encourage very many seminars or training on these topics.

We're not likely to have uniform standards or surveyors acting in their own best interest (as a profession) till leadership circles mature more in this aspect.

[mpallamary]

Well said!

[CBarrett]

I'm going to be obnoxious and expand on the Emotional Intelligence topic, in case anyone reads.

I have seen this often with many surveyors. Pointing out this or that detail of what they know and looking down their nose at someone else's work talking about the other person is clueless. All based on 5 minutes of superficial information.

I have seen it at work, at association meetings, at seminars, in classes and when surveyors get together socially (in person or online).

Calling other surveyors incompetent, negligent, careless, brainwashed, stupid, ignorant etc... only brings the person making those statements into focus and not in a very positive way. I have seen many surveyors, often in prominent positions not realize how this comes across. This kind of behavior is especially harmful when it is used on someone we mentor. We end up normalizing and even praising bad behaviors.

This really hurts us when we have to come together as a profession to grow with the times or deal with technical or legal changes in the profession. To many of us focus on deriding the proposition or a person trying to do something, before we even bother to understand the topic at had, that we get stuck in the stalemate. We hear a lot of people criticizing and saying that this or that needs to be done better or differently, but the bottom line is, while they are discussing and disagreeing about a perfect solution, the ship we needed to catch sails away - and long term, we harmed ourselves by perpetuating status quo.

We need to grow some courage to appreciate others. Yes, it takes more effort and courage to appreciate someone else's work and accept it than to find petty faults with it.

[mpallamary]

Well said! Thanks!

[TTaylor]

I'm pretty sure I have made this comment before but I'll repeat it here.

From my experiences nearly all disagreements come down to those in disagreement working from a different understanding of terms that are causing the disagreement. Once there is an agreement of the definition of the fundamental terms the disagreement goes away.

in this instance, having a well defined, clear definition with examples of incompetence, negligence, professional practice, and ethics would go a long way to remove disagreements and disputes.

2 cents

TT, PLS

[mpallamary]

Good point!

[PLS7393]

Since none of the smart surveyors I asked at the conference could answer this, I thought I would ask you "Smart" people since I didn't see you at the conference.

How can one be negligent, if the referenced map isn't filed yet???

[DWoolley]

Keith:

I will bite. Would you be more specific as to facts of the situation (filed map, unfiled map, not digging up monuments, etc.)? It is not clear to me.

Separate question, after the clarification, what are the acceptable differences between NorCal and SoCal under the same statutes and case law?

DWoolley

[PLS7393]

Keith:

I will bite. Would you be more specific as to facts of the situation (filed map, unfiled map, not digging up monuments, etc.)? It is not clear to me.

Separate question, after the clarification, what are the acceptable differences between NorCal and SoCal under the same statutes and case law?

DWoolley

Dave,
It clearly states "if the referenced map isn't filed yet".
Additionally, "acceptable differences between NorCal and SoCal under the same statutes and case law is not what I said. The PLS Act is the codes, that govern. I said "Standard of Practice between the North and South". If I wanted apples, please do not bring me oranges, lol.

[DWoolley]

Keith:

I will try one more time. The question is simply "can a surveyor be determined to be negligent for an unfiled map?". Of course, how would the filing of a map remove the professional negligence? Restated, if a surveyor never files a map she cannot be negligent, e.v.e.r - ridiculous. I have seen plenty of citations and revocations of licenses on filed maps. Negligence is the breach of a duty.

As for the standard of practice, well, I am fatigued with the mental gymnastics of trying to understand the words, context, or specifics. It's not you, it is me.

DWoolley

[Edward M Reading]

It might help to have the legal definition of the terms:

Board Rules and Regulations Relating to the Practices of Professional Engineering and Professional Land Surveying

California Code of Regulations, Title 16, Division 5 §§ 400-476

404. Definitions

(u) For the sole purpose of investigating complaints and making findings thereon under Sections 6775 and 8780 of the Code, “incompetence” as used in Sections 6775 and 8780 of the Code is defined as the lack of knowledge or ability in discharging professional obligations as a professional engineer or land surveyor.

(dd) For the sole purpose of investigating complaints and making findings thereon under Sections 6775 and 8780 of the Code, “negligence” as used in Sections 6775 and 8780 of the Code is defined as the failure of a licensee, in the practice of professional engineering or land surveying, to use the care ordinarily exercised in like cases by duly licensed professional engineers and land surveyors in good standing.

[LS_8750]

Hmm... I wonder if Voodoo qualifies as using the "care ordinarily exercised" ......... Because in some areas it appears to be more popular that using evidence.

[David Kendall]

Hmm... I wonder if Voodoo qualifies as using the "care ordinarily exercised" ......... Because in some areas it appears to be more popular that using evidence.

In NorCal we generally prefer lawn darts but you can call it voodoo if you like to implement dolls. I know you spent some time in San Diego so maybe that influences your ordinary exercise of care

I've actually been contemplating aerial lawn darts for parcel corners set from a small plane or drone. The efficiency will be off the charts if I can pull it off.

Don't worry I have a plastic plug with my LS number in the bottom of the metal darts

[CBarrett]

Since none of the smart surveyors I asked at the conference could answer this, I thought I would ask you "Smart" people since I didn't see you at the conference.

How can one be negligent, if the referenced map isn't filed yet???

In what context?

I've stated on the maps that certain reference is from an unrecorded map (because something was monumented few months ago but my map was submitted and will likely record prior to the RS which has been monumented already.
So on my tract map it may say 2"IP L.S. 1234 referenced on an unrecorded RS 2022-1234, (you can insert description how the info was obtained). Then you did you part. It is not strong evidence, but it is EVIDENCE, best that one has at the time.

If you read through Brown and Clark and other classics, they all recognize that unrecorded data, even if called quasi public records and near the bottom of evidence hierarchy, still has some evidentiary value. Negligence comes from the part where a minimally competent surveyor is expected to know this, but has neglected to dig deep enough.

If you read between the lines of the PLS code, or the lines themselves, you do know that there ae tile limits for map filings, and that if those time limits are going to be exceeded, a surveyor must notify and come to an agreement with the county surveyor. By large part is because this allows map or field notes access to other surveyors who may encounter your monuments in the field, and may need to use or honor them.

If you fins a series of monuments by an LS xxxx, and no reference, you are supposed to try and contact the surveyor to ask them about the monument disposition etc...

I know many people didn't go survey schools, but this is the kind of 'useless' stuff that gets taught in survey schools. You are supposed to keep records of your work and share them with other surveyors (mileage may vary a bit depending on jurisdictional differences), but the work you are doing is on behalf of public, and is meant to be shareable. (I am talking about boundary surveying where we set monuments).

I see some of this when map checking frequently, LS XXXX, no reference. In a lot of cases it turns out that surveyor of record didn't bother to pull up a corner record, or city ties. Recently, when it is a newer LS number (last 30 years maybe, where you expect the surveyor to still be practicing and alive) I have commented "did you contact the surveyor of record, what did they say?"

[David Kendall]

If you read through Brown and Clark and other classics, they all recognize that unrecorded data, even if called quasi public records and near the bottom of evidence hierarchy, still has some evidentiary value. Negligence comes from the part where a minimally competent surveyor is expected to know this, but has neglected to dig deep enough.

I agree with this statement. I know one surveyor who categorically (and proudly) rejects all unrecorded monuments by definition.

I don't even know where to begin.....

[CBarrett]

I agree with this statement. I know one surveyor who categorically (and proudly) rejects all unrecorded monuments by definition.

I don't even know where to begin.....

I understand!
Checking maps in recent years has been a very, uhm, educational experience.

[LS_8750]

The minimally competent surveyor should know and understand the hierarchy of evidence, the Rules of Evidence, and act accordingly. With all facts and evidence on the table, we can conceptualize differences of opinion.

The problem I see is that far too many land surveyors either ignore or are ignorant of their duty to recover the facts and evidence.

Failure to recover sufficient facts and evidence points to dereliction of professional duty.

The contrast between negligence and difference of opinion needs to be examined by the professional community.

A client of mine stated the following just the other day when announcing to me her case settled, "I think getting bad surveyors off the streets isn't possible. Get rid of two, one more comes to take his place."

She got caught up in Justice Cooley's "calamity". A surveyor found her garage built by her father in the 1940s to be encroaching 0.01' on one end and 0.09' on the other. Her uncle built the house in the 1920s and her father built the garage in the 1940s. She knew where her line was, and the facts and evidence recovered during the course of my survey placed the line almost exactly where she claimed it to be. Licenses were revoked over this, years of stress and money spent on both sides of the line. Not over differences of opinion, but over negligent practice.

In her eyes land surveyors are crooks, save a few of the good guys.

Maybe this is how it should be.

[DWoolley]

...
The contrast between negligence and difference of opinion needs to be examined by the professional community.
...
Licenses were revoked over this, years of stress and money spent on both sides of the line. Not over differences of opinion, but over negligent practice.

In her eyes land surveyors are crooks, save a few of the good guys.

Contrary to popular belief, the vast majority of competent land surveyors - presented with the same evidence - will arrive at the same conclusions. The disagreements in boundary are usually due to someone not performing properly and/or a lack of knowledge in the fundamentals.

The idea surveyors are crooks lends the surveying community more credibility than earned. I think of the select group of surveyors as third rate scoundrels. They're not bona-fide to rate being a crook. For example, a surveyor spends $70k outfitting a truck, gets up early, works late on low bid jobs and break the law with little consideration of the consequences. A master of vice would never go through these gyrations to earn a living dishonestly. Err, only a surveyor would go broke on a criminal enterprise.

The guy that lost his license still believes he didn't do anything wrong. His client sends curse laden emails, supporting the surveyor, at all hours of the night.

DWoolley

[CBarrett]

hahahaha,
Thanks Dave I needed that comic relief!
(As I'm checking a map of someone who needs to attend a map preparation seminar)

[LS_8750]

I don't think Mr. Wooley meant that as comic relief. Rather, it appears he is shining light on a much larger issue far from comical. Third rate scoundrels, perhaps not just a theory.

[CBarrett]

I don't think Mr. Wooley meant that as comic relief. Rather, it appears he is shining light on a much larger issue far from comical. Third rate scoundrels, perhaps not just a theory.

The issue is definitely real.
I was enjoying the form of Dave's delivery. Sometimes when we laugh it is out of exasperation with ongoing issues.

P.S. Don't get covid, it. is. not. fun. Even the mild version.