Opinion ID: 1708793
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Engineer's Motion

Text: Alvine was selected by How to provide engineering design services. Witherspoon alleges Alvine was negligent in specifying cast iron rather than ductile iron pipe and in failing, in view of the use of a cast iron pipe, to design adequate stress protection. The same rationale which leads to the conclusion that the professional period of repose does not bar the action against the architect, How, requires a conclusion that the action against the engineer, Alvine, is barred. There is no claim that the alleged acts and omissions of Alvine occurred beyond whatever date it delivered its engineering design services to How. Although the record does not tell us what that date was, it must be inferred to have been no later than when the pipe was installed in September of 1969, more than 10 years prior to the filing of suit. We recognize that in so holding, the result may at times be that one whose design is alleged to have caused or contributed to the failure of a structure becomes, by the passage of time, insulated from liability, while others involved in the construction process may remain subject to liability. Such, however, is the nature of periods of repose.