Tag Archives: engineer

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.

An Engineer interviews Santa Clause — and the red-suited man is NOT happy!

Posted on by

This post has nothing to do with the law.  After all, how cheery and festive can one make litigation issues?  Yeah, I thought so.  Anyhow, as you get ready for Christmas this year, remember the poor fat man in the red suit!  Below is part of an interview between Engineer (and EDN Blogger ) Jit Lim and Mr. Clause, and he is not happy.

santa and his posse

JL – Hi, Mr. Clause. My name is Jit Lim, I’m a senior technologist for a company called Tektronix.

SC – Mr. Clause? Don’t be so formal. Call me Santa. Can I call you Jit?

JL – Sure, Santa.

SC – Senior technologist, does that mean you’re an engineer?

JL – Close. As a senior technologist, I look at not only current technology but future technology, as well.

SC – So you’re responsible for creating new products? I’ve got to say that I’m a little perturbed about the speed at which you engineering types are launching new toys that people want for Christmas.

JL – Yes, I help make new products, but my company doesn’t actually make consumer goods. We make test equipment that makes it easier for companies to make those new toys. We like to say we “enable innovation.”

SC – Oh, so it’s your company and companies like yours that make it easier for all that new-fangled stuff to come out so fast?

JL – Well, yes. Is there a problem with that?

SC – Is there a problem?! You bet there’s a problem! What do you think goes on those lists I have to make every year? Toy soldiers? Dolls? Train sets! No. No. No. They want PlayStations, iPads, laptops. When kids started asking me for Wii’s I thought they needed to go to the bathroom, but it turns out it’s one of those new-fangled games.

JL – I don’t understand, Santa. What’s the problem?

SC – Do you know how fast those things change, “Mr. Enabling Innovation?” I can’t keep up. A perfect example is the iPad. It comes out in March of 2010, and by some miracle I was able to get my production up and running just in time for Christmas that year. I figured I get a jump-start on 2011 and start production early, and then in March they announce the iPad2. Do you know what it takes to re-train an elf?

JL – Well, no. But …

SC – I’ve got an excess inventory of iPads because I started producing too early and then I had to stop production and gear up for iPad2’s. Do you think Steve Jobs, may he rest in peace, gave me a call to give me a heads-up? Nope. He’s too busy innovating. No consideration for one of his most important supply chains.

To read the rest of this highly amusing interview, head over to EDN.

And to those of you who haven’t already done so, sign up for regular email updates of all blog posts here at Construction Law in NC so you’ll never miss a post.  It’s what all the good boys and girls are doing this year!

Photo (c) Whispering Crane blog 12/24/2006 via Creative Commons license.

How Twitter Can Benefit Your A/E/C Business (guest post)

Posted on by

Today’s guest post is by Katie Frasier, a social media specialist and writer for Work Boot News, a niche site specializing in work boots and dedicated to providing relevant, entertaining content for tradesmen. She can be found tweeting the latest construction news and interacting with industry members at @workbootscom.

Many A/E/C professionals understand the importance of using social media and have been advised to join Twitter—but putting yourself in the Twitterverse can seem intimidating at first. If you find yourself wondering what the heck Tweets are and how you’re supposed to implement them into your marketing plan, here are a few tips to help you get started and make the best return on time spent tweeting.

 Getting started

  • When signing up for your twitter account, choose a username that best reflects your business name to make your brand easy to find. Encourage followers by linking to your Twitter feed on your website, blog, Facebook, LinkedIn and any other platform you use.
  • Decide on your desired audience and Twitter goals. Are you reaching out to other industry professionals? Do you want to share and discuss industry news or gain leads for new business? These decisions will impact how you tweet, how formal or informal you want to come across, and the kind of content you will share with followers. To be successful, make sure you clearly define your method and stick with it consistently.winking twitter bird

 Create a core group to interact with

  • Find competitors or users who tweet to your desired audience, and spend time observing their approach. Search who they are following—chances are you’ll find users there who you’ll want to follow, too.
  • Utilize some of the many Twitter directories such as Twellow.com to search for people by keyword, such as construction” or “contractor” to follow, and add yourself to the directory while you’re at it.
  • Depending on your goals, you may want to investigate if any of your vendors use Twitter. Create a list and add them to it; this allows you to easily follow their tweets and stay informed.

 Listen and engage

  • Spend time listening to the conversations going on before adding to it. You should strive for a balance between conversing with others, asking questions and promoting yourself. If you’re constantly trying to drive traffic to your website or begging for business, no one will listen. But if you actively participate in your specialized Twitter community, people may be more apt to follow links you tweet or offer you their business.
  • Ask questions to get people talking. Answer questions to build relationships and assert yourself as an authority in your field.
  • Retweet content from others that may be relevant to your audience. They’ll appreciate the information, and the original tweeter will appreciate the gesture. Social media is all about building relationships. Making these connections, whether you’re portraying yourself as the expert in a subject or finding camaraderie among other A/E/C professionals, opens new opportunities for your business.

Questions for Katie about the benefits of using Twitter to promote your architectural or engineering practice?  Leave a comment, below.  And, remember to “follow” me on Twitter as well, at @melissabrumback.  I look forward to “talking” to you!

Photo ©Morpurgo.nl via Creative Commons license.