Category Archives: Law Notes

Top 3 Take-Away Lessons for Engineers from the Sewage case (law note)

Posted on by

takeaway signAs we discussed yesterday, CH2M was held liable in negligence for the accidental death and other injuries sustained by workers at the Spokane wastewater treatment facility.  Today, a few take-away lessons for design professionals, regardless of where you work:

  1. Never assume that you cannot be sued.  The engineers at CH2M thought they had a slam-dunk case, because there was actual language giving them immunity in the law.  However, even then that immunity language did not stop the lawsuit and liability.  You can always be sued, even with the best language in the law or your contract.
  2. Even limited work can give you significant liability.  One of CH2M’s arguments was related to the fact that they were providing limited work on an “on call” service contract.  As the Court noted, just because you have not actually put pencil to paper (or made the CAD drawings), doesn’t mean that you are not “designing” in the eyes of a court of law.
  3. You must assume the negligence of others.  Okay, the case doesn’t specifically say this, but it does note that CH2M could not escape liability because the City had made modifications to the plant over the years.  The Court held that “a reasonably prudent engineer in the position of CH2M could reasonably have anticipated” that the plant might have been modified over the years, and that a prudent engineer would have conducted an engineering analysis to make that determination.

Comments, thoughts, or questions?  Drop me a line!  I want to hear from you.

Photo:  (c) Debbi Long via CC.

Engineer: Immune or not in Sewer collapse? (Part 2) (law note)

Posted on by

riverside plantUPDATE 1/9/2012:  In the original version of this post, an incorrect picture was used of the new water reclamation facility for Spokane County, WA.  This photo is the facility discussed in the lawsuit.  Many thanks to David Moss, PE, for the correction. 

When last we left off, the causes of the Spokane wastewater treatment disaster were revealed to be a combination of three things: 1) a blocked overflow pipe; 2) a malfunctioning monitoring system inside the digester; and 3) a failed attempted to transfer sludge out of the digester.

Once this information came to light, the plaintiffs and their families filed a negligence action against CH2M and the city. The city of Spokane was immune from liability under the state’s Industrial Insurance Act.  The only issue at trial was whether CH2M was negligent. The lower court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding CH2M negligent. CH2M appealed the ruling, contending that it too ought to enjoy immunity under the Industrial Insurance Act.

The Court was confronted with determining whether immunity should be granted to the engineering firm. One provision of the Act states that that an injured worker may not seek damages against a design professional who is a third person retained to perform professional services on a construction project. However, a different provision states that immunity does not apply to the negligent preparation of design plans.

CH2M argued that the entire plant was a construction project, thus entitling it to immunity. It further argued that it did not prepare design plans, and as such the design plans provision of the Act should not apply. The plaintiffs argued the plant was not a construction site, and that CH2M did, in fact, prepare design plans negligently.

The Court found that there was undoubtedly construction occurring on the sewage treatment campus. The question was whether the existence of construction somewhere on the campus triggered automatic immunity. The Court concluded it did not. The construction was isolated on various parts of the campus and not widespread enough to cause the entire campus to be deemed a construction site.

With regard to producing design plans, the Court said that there was no appreciable difference in recommending a change in the piping of the sludge and the locations of the skillets under an “on call” service agreement, and preparing written plans and specifications to accomplish the same thing. The Court found that it was difficult to believe the legislature intended to allow design professionals to escape liability for negligent work by simply not writing down their plans.

The Court also held that CH2M owed a duty of care, as all such professionals do, and that the duty extended to the injured employees. The Court found that the duty was breached and that the breach was the proximate cause of the employees’ injuries.

Taken as a whole, the Court stated that the legislature, when enacting the Industrial Insurance Act, intended to protect design engineers from the sort of liability imposed on general contractors for workplace safety.  The Court refused, however, to believe that the legislature intended to protect design engineers from their own negligence.

Tomorrow, 3 take-away lessons from the case.

Thoughts, comments, or questions?  Post in the comment section, below.

Is an Engineer ever immune from lawsuit? (Law note)

Posted on by

Spokane city towerCan an Engineering firm be held liable in negligence despite provisions in a state law which allegedly gives design professionals immunity?  That was the issue confronted recently by the Supreme Court in the state of Washington in a case entitled Larry Michaels vs. CH2M Hill.

The Washington court analyzed its state Industrial Insurance Act, which is similar to North Carolina’s Workers’ Compensation Act.  These acts are often described as “grand compromises” between workers and their employers.  Injured workers are given a fast, no-fault compensation system for injuries in the workplace. Employers, in turn, are given immunity from civil suits.  The workers get speed and certainty, while the employers are required to pay less than they would be in a lawsuit.

Washington state’s Act, unlike North Carolina’s Act, provides some immunity for design professionals performing design services, and the court had to wrestle with the applicability in a particularly gruesome case involving a catastrophic failure at the Spokane wastewater treatment plant.

One man was killed and another two other seriously injured in May 2004 when a digester dome (a huge, sports stadium-like contraption) collapsed at the wastewater treatment plant. The collapse caused Mr. Cmos to fall into heated sewage sludge, where he drowned. The lower court judge described the incident as arguably one of the most disgusting and terrible deaths imaginable. Mr. Evans was thrown from the dome and drenched with the sewage, while Mr. Michaels was knocked down by a cascade of sludge. The survivors, and the family of Cmos, sued CH2M for negligence.

CH2M was an engineering firm hired by Spokane as a consultant on a 10-year capital improvement project to upgrade the plant. One of the tasks the engineering firm oversaw was replacement and re-engineering of several transfer tubes between various digester domes at the plan. Ultimately a buildup of sewage occurred, shattering the dome on digester #3 and fatally injuring Cmos.

A series of unfortunate events took place on that day in early May of 2004 that all conspired to lead to the sewage buildup. After failed attempts to transfer the sludge to another digester, foam began leaking out of a pressure relief valve at the top of dome #3. The effluent ran down the outside of the dome and a concerned plant superintendent worried that the discharge might enter the Spoken River. The supervisor gathered Cmos, Evans and Michaels and asked if the three could assist him in diverting the sludge. Cmos and Evans climbed the dome with a fire hose to siphon foam while the superintendent and Michaels attached the other end of the house to a drain.

The dome continued filling with sludge until it finally cracked and collapsed. Cmos, alive and conscious, dropped into 100 degree sewage sludge and died in excruciating physical pain, darkness and utter helplessness. Evans and Michaels suffered varying severe injuries including broken limbs and lung damage from aspirating the sewage.

The city hired an engineering firm to investigate the disaster. The firm concluded there were three main causes: 1) a blocked overflow pipe; 2) a malfunctioning monitoring system inside the digester; and 3) a failed attempted to transfer sludge out of the digester.

Tomorrow, we’ll discuss the Court’s analysis and ruling concerning whether or not CH2M had immunity from being sued, and Friday we’ll discuss a few take-away lessons from the case.  Stay tuned……

Have you signed up for the blog to be delivered directly to your in-box? If not, do so now, so you’ll be sure to catch parts 2 and 3 of this article, and never miss any other posts here, either.

Photo: (c) spokanephotos.com via Creative Commons license.

Top 3 Things You Should Know about Cell Phone and Texting Laws (Tue Tip)

Posted on by

cell phone drivingPlanning on driving out of your home state for the holidays?  Perhaps you’re flying somewhere, and have a rental car with your name on it? 

Before you go, be sure you know the following:

1.  Does the state you are in ban handheld cell phones while driving?

2. Does the state you are in ban texting while driving?

3. Is a violation of cell phone/texting laws a primary enforcement?  [That is, can an officer pull you over and cite you for using a handheld cell phone without any other traffic offense taking place?]

This handy chart of cell phone laws in all 50 states will give you the scoop.  Of course, it’s always best to play it safe, but this chart will at least keep you on the right side of the law. 

Happy Trails!

[hat tip to my partner John Nunnally for the link]

Do you know of an awesome website?  A great tool to use?  Share your tips with the community!  Drop me a note or comment, below. 

 —————————————–

Photo:  (c) Will Merydith via Creative Commons. 

Developers Rejoice Over Impact Fees Decision (news note)

Posted on by

Today I’m unveiling a new column here at Construction Law in North Carolina called “News Notes”.  News notes will be postings of current news items relating to the design (and construction) community.  [This means that sometimes I must be a tad drier than my usual festive self.  Consider yourself warned.]  If you have an idea for a News Note, drop me a line.

Much to the delight of developers and realtors across the state, the North Carolina Supreme Court recently affirmed a decision which struck down local school impact fees. The fees had been assessed to fund construction of new schools in the Cary portion of the Wake County schools to help with the Town ofCary’s  rapid growth.

Impact fees are usually enacted by local boards and town councils as Adequate Public Facilities Ordinances (APFO).  In 1999, the Town of Cary began assessing school impact fees on developers in certain portions of the town which faced overcrowding.  The revenue brought in by the fees was earmarked to pay for expansion of existing school facilities.  Notably, the Town of Cary has no separate school system from the rest of Wake County, and did not have the legal authority to control the provision of school facilities within the district.

Last month, the state Supreme Court, in a tight 3-3 tie decision (with one abstention) left the Court of Appeals decision in place, rejecting the Town’s attempt to collect school facilities fees and declaring the fees illegal.  [As an aside, my firm represented another developer who intervened in the lawsuit; however, the facts were somewhat different and we were not involved in this appeal.]

The Cary case is not the first time the issue has arisen in the state.  Currituck County once proposed a similar APFO to fund school construction during the real estate boom as out-of-state residents from Virginia crossed into North Carolina in an attempt to flee the taxes and dismal school system in Chesapeake,Virginia.

The Currituck proposal was widely criticized by both local and state homebuilder’s associations. Across North Carolina, homebuilders and realtor groups worked together to stop attempts at passing such impact fees. These organizations have run into problems as cash-strapped local governments see impact fees as one method of paying for increasingly expensive public school construction.

The theory is that developers of new homes pass the impact fees along to new home buyers by raising the price of homes or lots. Existing residents are spared the tax increases caused by a rapid influx of new residents with school-aged children. Thus, the people responsible for the increased strain on the school system – the new residents – bear the burden of the tax increase.

school

 

Over the past decade, Durham, Union County, and Cabarrus County have instituted similar impact fees. All three such attempts were disallowed by various courts. Thus far, virtually all attempts at imposing such fees have been struck down, although there appears to be wiggle room in the case law. For example, impact fees collected for improvements that directly run to the property (such as water or sewer lines) are typically allowed. Additionally, other municipal governments impose fees related to schools that have not (yet) been decided in the state court system, and those may be broad enough to pass judicial scrutiny.

In this case, Cary’s ordinance assessed residential developments a mitigation fee if they did not first obtain a certificate from Wake County certifying classroom availability. Over $4 million was ultimately collected since the ordinance was first passed in 1999. Cary is now faced with the prospect of returning these fees, plus over $300,000 in attorney fees awarded to the developers who filed suit.  Ouch!!!

Comments or questions?  Post in the comment section, below.

Photo (c) Ivy Dawned via Creative Commons license.