Title: VALLEY ETC. CO. v. Lake Hills Sewer Dist.

State: washington

Issuer: Washington Supreme Court

Document:

67 Wn.2d 910 (1966) 410 P.2d 796 VALLEY CONSTRUCTION CO., et al., Respondents, v. LAKE HILLS SEWER DISTRICT, Appellant.[*] No. 37739. The Supreme Court of Washington, Department One. February 3, 1966. Evan E. Inslee (of Johnson, Jonson & Inslee), for appellant. Allen, DeGarmo & Leedy, by Gerald DeGarmo, for respondent. LANGENBACH, J.[] Respondents, as contractor, sued to recover the unpaid balance on a contract and to recover costs for repairs which were requested by appellant. Appellant affirmatively counterclaimed for damages which allegedly resulted from respondents' failure to follow contract specifications, but admitted a balance was still due on the contract. The trial court granted judgment for respondents as pleaded, and dismissed the counterclaim with prejudice. This appeal was perfected. Respondents contracted to construct an 18-inch trunk sewer and two syphon lines according to contract specifications. The trunk sewer was satisfactorily completed; this dispute concerned only the installation of the syphon lines. The syphon lines consisted of two pipes, one 10 inches and the other 12 inches, inside diameter, to be laid beside each other in a single trench for a distance of 4,100 feet with a minimum of 6 inches between them, and with the maximum trench width (at pipe level) of 16 inches plus the outside diameter of the pipe. The 12-inch pipe was to be laid 7 feet from the edge of a road, under a drainage ditch, with a minimum 36-inch cover. The lines were to follow the grade of the road. The contract required the respondents to perform trench excavation and backfill, furnish and install pipe, manholes, *912 fittings and other appliances. The respondents used 13-foot sections of asbestos cement pressure pipe as the syphon lines. The applicable pipe bedding method was prescribed as follows: 10. Pipe Bedding The evidence disclosed that, as the syphon line trench was being excavated, hardpan was encountered. The contract stated respondents had inspected the area and were satisfied as to the conditions of the site and contract specifications prior to submitting a bid. The contract specified that respondents handshape the trench bottom to fit the pipe barrel so that the pipe would rest on the shaped trench bottom. Respondents admitted this, but asserted that, when the hardpan was reached, it became impossible to handshape the bottom of the trench. This hardpan condition was orally called to the attention of appellant's inspector, chief inspector, and project engineer, in an attempt to secure permission to use bedding *913 material (pea gravel) in preparation of the trench bottom. Inspector Sims approved and reported favorably to his superiors, who refused this permission. Such requests were verbal, and none were in writing, as required by the contract: 7. Corrections, Interpretations and Addenda 9. Omissions and Discrepancies: .... The contract provision for payment of bedding material was: Item No. 15 .... When these oral requests for use of bedding material in the hardpan trench were refused, respondents determined that handshaping the trench bottom for suitable support of *914 the trench barrel was impracticable in all instances and impossible in hardpan. Consequently, a cushion course method of installation was utilized. From the excavation, selected material (excluding rocks, roots and foreign material) was used for a cushion course of approximately 4 inches in depth. This was compacted by men walking on it. Thereon mounds would be placed; one where each end of the pipe was to be laid. Due to over-excavation, the mounds in some instances were 12 inches high; normally, the mounds were approximately 4 inches high. These mounds would not be compacted nor tamped prior to laying the pipes. After the pipes were laid, select material was used to fill the ditch up to the middle portion of the pipes; then, the dirt was compacted by two-by-fours, handles of shovels, and men using their feet. Due to the narrowness of the trench, this compacting was difficult. The material used for mounding and filling was relatively dry. When the rains fell, the mound and fill material (the pipes being laid under a drainage ditch) became so saturated that it turned into a mush substance. Accordingly, the pipes were allowed to change position to such an extent that they broke. The engineers testified that the breaks were caused by "beam action." The plane of separation was nearly perpendicular to the center line of the pipe. This type of crack indicated that the top of the pipe had been in tension and the bottom in compression; the ends of the pipe sections deflected downward relative to the middle of the pipe. The number of the breaks totaled 48. After these breaks, appellant demanded that respondents make repairs and replace 1,000 feet of pipeline. Respondents made repairs but refused to replace the 1,000 feet of pipe; thereupon appellant retained another contractor. For this extra cost, appellant counterclaimed. Although appellant made several assignments of error, the critical one is finding of fact No. 4: The questions are whether this finding is supported by the evidence, and whether, in any event, respondents were relieved of their contract specifications. The general principles and law are well-settled: [I]n 88 A.L.R. 798. .... In Maryland Cas. Co. v. Seattle, 9 Wn.2d 666, 676, 116 P.2d 280 (1941), the court noted that the contract in that case did not contain any representation or implied warranty as to underground conditions. It said: [1] Respondents inspected the area prior to bidding and *917 knew it to be of hardpan; yet, they did not contract for such a possibility. They assumed the risk of the difficulty encountered in handshaping to fit the barrel of the pipe into a hardpan trench. See, Restatement, Contracts § 456; and 6 Corbin, Contracts § 1333, p. 365 (1962). Nevertheless, respondents argued that, upon hitting hardpan, handshaping the trench bottom became so impracticable as to be impossible; that they went to appellant's inspector and engineer for permission to use bedding gravel, which was denied. Also, the consensus of all expert witnesses was that some bedding material (as pea gravel) was required for proper installation of these syphon lines, and that handshaping the trench was not an adequate method under the circumstances. Be that as it may, respondents agreed to follow the specifications provided by appellant; as long as they did so, they would not be liable for any disastrous consequences. Even assuming that it was physically impossible to handshape the trench bottom, respondents would only be discharged from nonperformance or poor workmanship (due to the impossibility) by following the specifications. The legal effect of impossibility would not relieve respondents from the onus of guaranteeing any method or plan of installation other than in the contract specification as that rule is stated in Kenney v. Abraham, supra. Confronted with the refusal of their oral requests to use bedding material in the trench, respondents had the following courses of procedure: (1) to obtain written permission to use bedding gravel when hardpan was encountered; or (2) to attempt to use bedding gravel as an extra. The only other alternative would have been to proceed as directed by the contract. Section 7 provided, "need for interpretations should be brought to the attention of the Engineer in writing.... All interpretations ... shall be in writing." (Italics ours.) Section 9 provided, "If the Contractor, in the course of the work, finds any discrepancy between the drawings and the physical conditions of the locality ... it shall be his duty to inform the Engineer *918 immediately in writing, and the Engineer shall promptly verify the same. Any work done after such discovery, until authorized, will be done at the Contractor's risk." (Italics ours.) Instead of proceeding by any of these methods, respondents ignored the contract in the presence of hardpan; the cushion course or mounding method was used. Alternatively, assuming the contract specifications did not require handshaping of the trench bottom, respondents adopted the cushion course or mounding method on their own initiative. In so doing, they assumed full responsibility for their course of action. Kenney v. Abraham, 199 Wash. 167, 90 P.2d 713 (1939). [2] Nevertheless, respondents argued that the inspectors and engineer, not only in charge of the project but also in interpreting the contract and in authorizing extras, knew that respondents were using the cushion course method (one inspector described the work as excellent) without any objection thereto. Therefore, appellant is precluded from now objecting. This court, however, in Hurley v. Kiona-Benton School Dist. No. 27, 124 Wash. 537, 215 Pac. 21 (1923), has answered this argument. It was held that the clause giving the architect or engineer final power to determine or interpret provisions of a contract does not confer power on the engineer to modify the contract and accept a different specification. Otherwise, there would be no need of the written contract. Accord, DeHoney v. Gjarde, 134 Wash. 647, 236 Pac. 290 (1925). [3] Respondents further asserted the trial court's determination and judgment upon conflicting evidence is decisive and the appellate court cannot substitute its findings in lieu of those of the trial court. This court is bound by such findings if supported by substantial evidence. Delegan v. White, 59 Wn.2d 510, 368 P.2d 682 (1962). We are of the considered opinion that the overwhelming evidence on both sides did not support that part of finding of fact No. 4 italicized above. The respondents deliberately did not follow the specifications and contract in the installation of the syphon lines. The breaks were caused solely *919 and entirely by the manner of their installation. This was the sole responsibility of the respondents, once they determined to ignore the express terms of the contract. This disregard caused the syphon lines to break and the respondents were responsible for such cause. The judgment is reversed. The cause is remanded to enter a judgment for respondents in the sum of $19,761.08 which the appellant has admitted as the balance due on the original contract. The appellant is allowed its costs on appeal. HILL, FINLEY, OTT, and HAMILTON, JJ., concur. [*] Reported in 410 P.2d 796. [] Judge Langenbach is serving as a judge pro tempore of the Supreme Court pursuant to Art. 4, § 2(a) (amendment 38), state constitution.