A huge component of compulsory (either by statute or de-facto as a result of adjacent statute, like mandatory insurance + requirements thereof) professional licensure is that if you follow the rules set by (some entity deputized by) government the government will in return never leave you holding the bag. The government gains partial control and the people under it's control get partial protection.

"oh I'm sorry your hospital burned down mr plantiff but the electrician was following his professional rules so his liability is capped at <small number> you'll just have to eat this one"

I would wager that a solid half if not more of the economy exists under some sort of arrangement like that.

▲

bobthepanda 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Right, but usually that also involves verifying that the electrician actually followed the professional rules, and if not, they have liability

▲

cucumber3732842 4 hours ago | parent [-]

So the court checks if they were "just following orders"?

Sounds to me like following orders is in fact this magical thing that causes courts to direct liability away from the defendant.

	▲	johngunderman 43 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I think the point is supposed to be that "following the practices and procedures that limit their liability" = "doing their due diligence to reduce risk in accordance with their credentialing body". We generally don't hold people liable for acts of God or random chance failures. For example, malpractice suits generally need to prove that a doctor was intentionally negligent on their responsibility. Everything in real life has quantifiable risk, and part of why we have governing bodies for many things is because we can improve our processes to reduce the risk. It's not just following orders :) it's recognizing that the solution to risks isn't to punish the actor but to improve the system.