Summary
The Supreme Court of Washington affirmed a judgment holding CH2M Hill and its employee liable for negligence arising from the collapse of a sewage digester that killed one worker and injured two others. The court held that the defendants were not entitled to design-professional immunity under RCW 51.24.035 because the relevant work was not performed on a construction project and involved negligent design-related services. The court also upheld findings concerning the engineers’ duty of care and the challenged factual and causation determinations.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether CH2M Hill and its employee were immune from suit under RCW 51.24.035.
- Whether the defendants owed the plaintiffs a professional-engineering duty of care.
- Whether substantial evidence supported the trial court's findings of breach.
- Whether the defendants' conduct was a cause in fact and legal cause of the injuries.
- Whether the City's negligence was an intervening superseding cause that relieved the defendants of liability.
Holdings
- The statutory immunity for design professionals performing professional services on a construction project did not apply because the relevant work occurred in an operating sewage digester that was not itself a construction project or construction site, and the plaintiffs did not allege liability for failure to provide a safe construction site.
- RCW 51.24.035(2) excludes from immunity negligent preparation of design plans and specifications, and the exclusion applies even when the design recommendations are oral or implemented without formal written plans.
- Design professionals owe a duty to exercise the degree of skill, care, and learning possessed by members of their profession in the community, and that duty extends at least to persons working on property while the designs are implemented.
- Substantial evidence supported the trial court's findings that CH2M and Irving breached the professional standard of care by failing to analyze the effects of the skillet and flow-separation changes and failing to communicate those effects to plant supervisors.
- Substantial evidence supported the trial court's findings that the defendants' breach was a cause in fact and legal cause of the injuries and that the City's negligent conduct was not an independent superseding cause.
Key quotations
“We conclude it does not.” (at 540)
“We find it difficult to believe that the legislature intended to allow design professionals to escape liability for negligent work by not writing down their plans or specifications.” (at 542)
“We hold that design professionals have a duty of care to "exercise the degree of skill, care, and learning possessed by members of their profession in the community."” (at 543)
“While reasonable minds may differ, this is a question of fact to be left to the trial judge except in the most extreme cases.” (at 546)
Factual background
CH2M Hill was retained by the City of Spokane to provide engineering and program-management services for a wastewater-treatment-plant improvement project and on-call plant-operations services. As an interim solution to a temperature problem, CH2M employee Kelly Irving recommended modifications to sludge piping and the installation of skillets, but CH2M did not perform or communicate an engineering analysis concerning how the changes would affect plant operations and valving. City employees later attempted to transfer sludge from an overfilled digester, unknowingly created a deadhead, and failed to prevent the digester from filling until its dome collapsed, killing Mike Cmos and seriously injuring Evans and Michaels.
Procedural history
The plaintiffs sued CH2M Hill and Irving for negligence after a digester dome collapsed, killing Mike Cmos and injuring Dan Evans and Larry Michaels. The trial court entered judgment for the plaintiffs following a bench trial. The Court of Appeals certified the case to the Washington Supreme Court, which affirmed.