Opinion ID: 2069153
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: intake capacity

Text: We believe that the trial court was justified in finding, without the aid of expert testimony, that the Engineer's errors and omissions constituted negligence and resulted in an inadequate intake capacity, to the City's damage in the amount of approximately $23,500. By the terms of the October 1962 agreement between the Engineer and the City, the Engineer was obligated to analyze the piping, valving, and structural characteristics of the existing plant so as to establish desirable changes to provide effective sanitary and economic operation and to determine a more suitable means for increasing water plant output of properly treated water. The Engineer knew, or had reason to know, that the City was motivated to expend substantial sums for a new water plant in order to increase the intake capacity of the works to a level of approximately 2,500 gallons per minute. Being aware of the City's expectations as to the intake capacity of the new plant, the Engineer recommended that the then existing system, whereby the City's water supply was diverted from St. Mary's Lake by means of suction applied to a pipe extending into the lake, be replaced by a gravity system. [7] Lake water was to be moved into a well-like structure located near the shoreline, called a shorewell. [8] Of signal importance, the line of pipe to be used for this purpose was to be the same one used as part of the replaced suction system. From the shorewell the water was to be pumped by low-lift service pumps to a newly constructed water treatment plant from which, after sanitation, it was to be pumped by high-lift service pumps into the City's transmission lines and a storage reservoir. The evidence supports the trial court's conclusion that the intake capacity of the new plant proved inadequate, [9] in part because there was a failure to anticipate changes in the lake level and the effect thereof upon the flow of water to the water treatment plant, and in part because the existing intake line incorporated into the gravity system was not 18 inches in diameter throughout its length, as was assumed, but instead was in some places 16 inches and in others only 12 inches in diameter. In the absence of evidence demonstrating that the changes in the lake level were such as could not reasonably have been anticipated by an engineer recommending the use of a gravity system, the effectiveness of which depends on such levels, the failure of the Engineer to design this intake facility in such a way as to make functional accommodation to changes in lake levels possible was not consistent with the level of skill, care, and diligence to be expected of a design engineer. Should the trier of fact have difficulty in drawing this inference without the aid of expert testimony, the preparation of designs based upon the assumption that the intake line was 18 inches in diameter when in fact it was significantly less than that would support, if not compel, a finding of negligence, in the absence of some acceptable explanation for the failure to ascertain the true dimensions of this pipe. The explanation, if there is one, appearing in the record suggests that the Engineer may have been misled into believing that the intake line was 18 inches in diameter by a picture and some incomplete drawings that were made available to him and the circumstance that physical measurement of the intake line was made difficult by the presence of sediment which had built up around it in the bottom of the lake. We believe that the trial judge was able to assess the validity of these excuses without the aid of expert testimony. The evidence demonstrates that the intake pipe, located in the lake, which served the old suction system and which was employed as a part of the new gravity system was approximately 200 feet in length. It was laid on the bottom of St. Mary's Lake in approximately 40 feet of water. Two vertical pipes, known as risers, projected upwards from it a distance of about 18 feet. The Engineer testified that all the information and drawings obtained from the City and from state authorities indicated that the intake pipeline was 18 inches in diameter. A photograph of the intake pipe as it lay on the ice of St. Mary's lake prior to original installation was examined, but no claim is made that the precise diameter of the pipeline could be determined from looking at this picture. The Engineer's employees entered the lake for the purpose of examining the intake line but failed to note the reduction in its size to 16 inches and again to 12 inches, perhaps because of the presence of sediment covering the pipe as it lay on the bottom of the lake. Whatever difficulty may have been experienced in deciphering the available drawings containing information relevant to the size of the intake pipe, the evidence is uncontradicted that in September 1966, at a time, perhaps, too late to effect design alterations, a professional diver found it possible to ascertain the true dimensions of the piping, i. e. 12-inch risers leading into a 12-inch L, leading into a 12-inch T, leading into a 12-inch stub, leading into a 16-inch horizontal pipe heading toward the shoreline and the plant. A blueprint which had allegedly been available to appellants, but which was not examined by them, showed an intake structure similar to that disclosed by the 1966 physical examination. In our judgment, no expert opinion is needed to demonstrate that a design engineer charged with the responsibility of analyzing the piping and other structural characteristics of an existing plant should be as certain of the dimensions of the intake line as circumstances would possibly permit before recommending a plan the function of which depended upon this critical measurement. It would seem clear that the examination of a photograph of the line would be of little value. Incomplete drawings made available to the Engineer at its request indicate that the intake line was 18 inches in diameter at the point of terminus with the old plant, but we believe that common knowledge would reject this as adequate basis for careful analysis. We find the explanation given for the failure of the Engineer's employees who entered the lake for the purpose of measuring the intake line unsatisfactory when the record shows that others employed for this same purpose by the City were able to obtain the true dimensions of the intake line without difficulties disproportionate to the importance of the task. It seems to us that when a professional designs a water plant, in particular a plant intended to deal with increased community needs, that professional should, as a matter of reasonable care, be certain of the size of the piping which provides the plant with raw water and should be equally certain that, ultimately, there will be an adequate supply of water, both in the sense of supply to the plant and in the sense of supply upon which the plant may draw, to meet the operational expectations of the design; or, in avoidance, should more convincingly demonstrate why, under the circumstances, it was good professional practice not to do so. To our way of thinking, appellants failed to take the steps necessary to obtain that assurance, given the physical availability of the information in the piping itself and appellants' difficulties in obtaining other conclusive data, at a time which would allow the owners to re-evaluate their commitment prior to the physical construction's actual beginnings. Furthermore, they failed to design a total intake system that would ensure the plant an adequate shorewell supply of water. We believe that appellants' omissions were so apparent that it was within the ability and province of the trier of fact, one without pertinent professional skills using only his common sense, experience, knowledge, and comprehension, to conclude that the conduct was negligent under the circumstances, this without aid of expert testimony on the standard of care or its breach. The trial court found: To remedy the present situation of the intake carrying capacity, and to insure an intake capacity of 2500 gallons per minute at the minimum lake level, to which plaintiffs are entitled, a proposed modification as represented by Exhibit 26 would be of the reasonable cost of $17,452.00, plus contractor overhead and profit (20%) in the amount of $3,490.40, and engineering and inspection (15%) in the amount of $2,617.80, for a total of $23,560.20. The memorandum made part of the order for judgment reads, in part: The measure of damages in a case against an engineer appears to be patterned after the rule set down in H. P. Droher and Sons v. Toushin, 250 Minn. 490, 85 N.W.2d 273.    [W]here there has been a substantial good faith effort to perform the contract but there are defects of such a nature that the contract has not been performed according to its terms which defects can be remedied without the destruction of a substantial part of the building, the owner is entitled to recover the cost of making the work conform to the contract. In Northern Petrochemical Co. v. Thorsen & Thorshov, Inc., 297 Minn. 118, 211 N.W.2d 159 (1973), an action against an architect, a general contractor, and a structural engineer for damages resulting from the alleged faulty construction and subsequent reconstruction of a building, and a cause founded in claims of negligence, breach of contract, and breach of warranty, we held:    The preferred measure of damage in a case such as this is to take either the cost of reconstruction in accordance with the contract, if this is possible without unreasonable economic waste, or the difference in the value of the building as contracted for and the value as actually built, if reconstruction would constitute unreasonable waste. [Citing H. P. Droher & Sons v. Toushin, 250 Minn. 490, 85 N.W.2d 273 (1957).] 297 Minn. 124, 211 N.W.2d 165. In Annotation, 25 A.L.R.2d 1085, 1100, the following is said with respect to the measure of damages for an architect's liability: The trend of the decisions generally seems to make the measure of damages recoverable against an architect for defects attributable to plans or specifications depend largely upon the character and extent of the shortcoming. Where it can be corrected without unreasonable or disproportionate expense, such expense is ordinarily the measure of the damages recoverable. If, however, the defect is so basic or extensive that it cannot be remedied at reasonable expense or without tearing down and rebuilding the structure, then the proper measure of damages is the difference between the value of the building as it is and the value it would have had if the plans and specifications had been adequate. Where defects or insufficiency of work    are attributable to the architect's plans, the measure of damages applied in a majority of the cases has been the cost of remedying the defective construction. To the same effect see 5 Am.Jur.2d Architects, § 24. Cf. Restatement, Contracts, § 346; McCormick, Law of Damages, § 168. We believe the damages allowed in this case to be reasonably consistent with the authorities to which reference has been made.