Summary
The Washington Supreme Court answered a certified question from the Ninth Circuit concerning whether a monorail operator with contractual rights to use and operate property owned by the City of Seattle could sue an engineering firm for negligent damage to that property despite lacking contractual privity. The court held that engineers undertaking professional services owe an independent common-law duty of reasonable care, measured by the care, skill, and learning expected of a reasonably prudent Washington engineer. That duty extends to safety risks of physical damage and to persons holding legally protected interests in the damaged property, allowing the insurer-subrogee to pursue the negligence claim.
Holdings
- Engineers who undertake engineering services in Washington owe a common-law duty to exercise reasonable care independent of their contractual obligations.
- The measure of reasonable care for an engineer undertaking engineering services is the degree of care, skill, and learning expected of a reasonably prudent engineer in Washington acting in the same or similar circumstances.
- An engineer's duty of care encompasses safety risks of physical damage to the property on which the engineer works, even when the plaintiff's damages also include business interruption or other economic consequences.
- An engineering firm's duty of care regarding damage to property extends to persons holding a legally protected interest in that property; ownership of the property is not required.
- Because AFM was subrogated to SMS's rights, it may pursue damages for tortious injury to SMS's legally protected property interests, including potentially consequential lost profits.
Questions Presented
- Whether an engineering firm that undertakes engineering services owes an independent tort duty of reasonable care notwithstanding its contract with the property owner.
- Whether that duty extends to safety risks of physical damage to property in which a nonowner concessionaire holds a legally protected right to use and possess the property.
- Whether the economic loss rule or independent duty doctrine bars the subrogee's negligence claim against the engineering firm.
- What measure of reasonable care applies to an engineer undertaking professional engineering services.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (13)
- Eastwood v. Horse Harbor Foundation, 170 Wash. 2d 380, 241 P.3d 1256 (2010)(followed)
- Berschauer/Phillips Construction Co. v. Seattle School District No. 1, 124 Wash. 2d 816, 881 P.2d 986 (1994)(distinguished)
- Seattle Western Industries, Inc. v. David A. Mowat Co., 110 Wash. 2d 1, 750 P.2d 245 (1988)(followed)
- G.W. Construction Corp. v. Professional Service Industries, Inc., 70 Wash. App. 360, 853 P.2d 484 (1993)(followed)
- Snyder v. Medical Service Corp. of Eastern Washington, 145 Wash. 2d 233, 35 P.3d 1158 (2001)(followed)
- Taylor v. Stevens County, 111 Wash. 2d 159, 759 P.2d 447 (1988)(followed)
- Hunsley v. Giard, 87 Wash. 2d 424, 553 P.2d 1096 (1976)(followed)
- Schooley v. Pinch's Deli Market, Inc., 134 Wash. 2d 468, 951 P.2d 749 (1998)(followed)
- ESCA Corp. v. KPMG Peat Marwick, 135 Wash. 2d 820, 959 P.2d 651 (1998)(followed)
- Stuart v. Coldwell Banker Commercial Group, Inc., 109 Wash. 2d 406, 745 P.2d 1284 (1987)(distinguished_from)
Showing top 10 of 13.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.