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.

I'm not thinking act of god. I'm thinking "everyone knows this is stupid and wrong and will cause a problem eventually but it's easier to just follow the rule than challenge it" situations because "if I follow the rules my ass is covered".