257 P.3d 532
Wash.2011Background
- Catastrophic digester 3 failure at Spokane wastewater plant injures and kills workers; CH2M Hill acted as city’s engineering design/management consultant during a decade-long upgrade.
- Plant modifications included installing flow-altering skillets; no written engineering analysis of the flow/valve impacts.
- City employees attempted to divert sludge to relieve pressure; lack of awareness about skid/valve changes worsened conditions.
- Exponent report identified three main causes: blocked overflow, faulty monitoring, and improper sludge transfer; pumping beyond design level caused the disaster.
- CH2M Hill argued immunity under RCW 51.24.035; trial court found CH2M liable for negligent design; appellate court affirmed
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CH2M enjoys Industrial Insurance Act immunity under RCW 51.24.035(1). | Immunity applies only where construction site exists; here not a construction site. | Disaster occurred within a construction project site; immunity should apply. | Immunity does not apply to the area since no construction site occurred; area not a construction project site. |
| Whether CH2M negligently prepared design plans and specifications under RCW 51.24.035(2). | Irving’s skillet recommendation constitutes negligent design. | No written plans; immunity should preclude liability; or negligent design not proven. | CH2M negligently prepared design plans/specifications; §51.24.035(2) applies. |
| Whether CH2M owed a duty of care to plaintiffs and breached it. | Design professionals owe duty to act with reasonable care; CH2M breached by failing to analyze effects. | Duty disputed; focus on whether professional standard was met. | Yes, design professionals owe a duty of care and CH2M breached it. |
| Proximate cause: whether CH2M's breach proximately caused injuries. | But-for CH2M’s breach, the disaster would not have occurred. | Other factors and intervening city actions contribute; uncertain causation. | CH2M's breach was a proximate cause; not superseded by city actions. |
| Supervening (intervening) causes by city conduct. | City conduct could be a superseding cause. | Trial lacked clear superseding cause. | No independent superseding cause; CH2M remains liable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Affiliated FM Ins. Co. v. LTK Consulting Servs., Inc., 170 Wash.2d 442 (2010) (engineer’s duty of care extends to safety risks to property and people)
- Schooley v. Pinch's Deli Mkt., Inc., 134 Wash.2d 468 (1998) (duty, standard of care, and causation in professional liability)
- Hartley v. State, 103 Wash.2d 768 (1985) (proximate cause and public duty considerations in government liability)
- Riggins v. Bechtel Power Corp., 44 Wash.App. 244 (1986) (common law liability for work-site injuries against design professionals)
- Burg v. Shannon & Wilson, Inc., 110 Wash.App. 798 (2002) (duty to warn and supervise in construction-related contexts)
- Porter v. Sadri, 38 Wash.App. 174 (1984) (scope of liability for construction-related negligence)
- Loyland v. Stone & Webster Eng'g Corp., 9 Wash.App. 682 (1973) (liability based on contractual/safety responsibility and control)