Case law has shown that in seismically active areas, owners of potentially vulnerable structures should have an understanding of the ability of their property to perform satisfactorily in foreseeable earthquakes. In the case of an existing building, that understanding should be informed by evaluations performed by structural consultants utilizing professional judgment augmented with available rating systems, guidelines and methodologies. The structural consultant should be able to answer important questions about anticipated seismic performance, including identifying specific vulnerabilities and available mitigation measures that improve seismic performance, which very often consist of partial, incremental, or vulnerability-based seismic retrofits. For new buildings, the structural engineer of record may be the one asked to provide such predictions for their own design, as well as options for improving the design's anticipated seismic performance to meet the owner's expectations. In their typical role, the structural consultant is an advisor with no authority to implement their recommendations. However, in the event of poor structural performance in an earthquake, the advice and actions of the structural consultant, as well as the building owner, will be scrutinized. While the engineering profession understands that a collapse prevention retrofit will not prevent property damage or possible injury, that "subtlety" may be lost on owners and injured parties in the post-event search for scapegoats. How can structural consultants simultaneously serve the public good by working to improve seismic performance of our building stock in a cost effective manner without becoming liable for foreseeable damage in an actual event?
