Creative Development Ltd. (Creative) entered into a contract with Towers & Associates, Architects for the design and preparation of contract documentation necessary to construct a 20- storey office building of unique design. Tower & associates also agreed to perform inspection services during the construction of the office building.

Towers & Associates prepared the conceptual design, and Biggar Inc., an engineering consulting form, agreed to prepare the detailed structural design for the project.

The Biggar Firm was retained by Towers & Associates. However, it appeared that the firms very busy schedule would not permit its senior design engineer sufficient time to attend to the design personally. Biggar turned the matter over to one of its employee engineers, Hillary Abel, a recent engineering graduate in whom the Biggar firm had great confidence.

Abel Completed the design and Biggars senior design engineer reviewed it. Although not having checked all of Abels calculations in details, Biggar senior design engineer concluded that the design appeared satisfactory, and the senior design engineers stamp was affixed to the design drawings. The drawings were submitted to Towers & Associates. Towers & Associates included Biggars structural-design drawings in the contract documents for construction of the project.

Creative entered into a construction contract with Sound Construction Ltd. to erect the office building. During the course of construction, the partly finished building collapsed, resulting in considerable damage to Creatives property. As well, there was a substantial delay in the completion of the office building. Creative conducted an investigation as to the cause of the collapse, and obtained the opinion of another consulting engineering firm. The second firm thought that the structural design, as supplied by Biggar firm, was inadequate in circumstances.

The investigation also revealed that Towers & Associates had retained Subdata Inc. soils experts, to carry out soil tests, prior to Abels preparation of the structural design. Creative subsequently obtained an opinion from another firm specializing in soils tests; the second firm concluded that many more tests should have been performed by Subdata Inc. As well, the second form thought that the results of the tests performed were borderline; the employee of Subdata Inc. who prepared the original report, had very seriously erred in concluding that the test results were satisfactory. The second soils experts also concluded that the subsurface conditions resulted in settlement on one side of the building during construction; the settlement contributed to the collapse.

Explain the potential liabilities in arising from the preceding set of facts in tort law. Discuss, with reasons, a likely outcome of the matter.