Opinion ID: 1782452
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Negligence Claim Against TTL

Text: RaCON alleges that TTL was negligent in recommending the use of and designing rock buttresses to prevent slope failures or to remedy several landslides on the project. RaCON submitted the expert opinion of David Been, a civil engineer, in opposition to TTL's motion for a summary judgment. Been attested that TTL had failed to use the ordinary skill and care of a geotechnical engineer when TTL (a) concluded that soil conditions were unstable in the locations where the 14 rock buttresses were constructed, (b) improperly performed a computer analysis of soil conditions in those areas, (c) refused to recommend the use of underdrains or other less costly methods as an alternative to rock buttresses, and (d) erroneously determined that rock buttresses were required to prevent potential or actual slope failures on the project. The trial court's order granting TTL's motion for a summary judgment on RaCON's negligence claim stated, in pertinent part: 5. TTL argues that RaCON was contributorily negligent in how it interpreted the contract documents, that RaCON had a duty to follow TTL's rock buttress design, that TTL was not the proximate cause of RaCON's damages, and that TTL was not negligent. RaCON argues that none of these arguments applied under the facts of this case, that genuine issues of fact preclude summary judgment, that TTL had a duty not to act negligently as to RaCON and that it breached that duty. The Court finds that, even if TTL was negligent in determining whether preventive rock buttresses were required, such negligence would harm the County, not RaCON and further that RaCON assumed the risk. The Court therefore grants summary judgment for Defendant TTL as to RaCON's negligence claims against TTL. (Emphasis added.) On appeal, RaCON and TTL address the meaning of the trial court's holding that TTL's negligence would harm the County, not RaCON. RaCON argues that, if the trial court held that RaCON's claim was barred by its contributory negligence, the summary judgment for TTL on count IV should be reversed because determinations as to whether a party has been contributorily negligent usually are reserved for the jury. Arguing that there was substantial evidence indicating that RaCON executed the contract with knowledge that it had an obligation to construct rock buttresses, TTL asks this court to hold that RaCON's own negligence in reviewing the contract documents and in bidding zero for the rock-buttress materials bars its recovery. [15] The trial court's determination that TTL's negligence would harm the County, not RaCON is essentially a finding that TTL owed no legal duty to RaCON. It is axiomatic that the defendant in a negligence action must have a duty to the claimant. Ex parte CSX Transp., Inc., 938 So.2d 959, 962 (Ala.2006). Whether a party owes a duty to another is strictly a question of law. Taylor v. Smith, 892 So.2d 887, 891 (Ala.2004). The uncontested facts pertinent to count IV are as follows. The County retained BKI as engineer for the project. In turn, BKI contracted with TTL for TTL to provide geotechnical services for soil conditions along the proposed roadway. TTL stated in its early November 1999 pre-bid report that rock buttresses will likely be required at several locations along the alignment to stabilize the slopes. TTL recommended early in November 1999 that the engineering plans for the project should require the construction of rock buttresses as directed by the project engineer. TTL also estimated certain volumes and specified types of material (i.e., riprap and filter blanket) that the contractor selected to complete the project should use to construct those structures. To the extent noted in the facts stated above, BKI incorporated TTL's recommendations concerning rock buttresses into the plans and specifications for the project, and the bid instructions specifically stated that large quantities of material for the construction of rock buttresses shall be considered by the contractor as the quantities required to complete the work for the purpose of bidding. The bid process also included an equitable method for comparing the competitive bids and for adjusting the price to be paid to the contractor should more or less than the estimated quantities of material be necessary to construct the rock buttresses the engineer would require. Beginning in early May 2000 TTL designed the first of 14 rock buttresses and commenced specifying the locations on the project where, in TTL's judgment, those structures were needed to prevent slope failures. For purposes of reviewing the summary judgment, we assume that TTL knew that RaCON had bid zero for the rock-buttress materials when TTL designed the structures and specified those locations. RaCON and TTL acknowledge that this Court has rejected the absence of privity of contract as a defense to a negligence claim against a party to a construction project. Berkel & Co. Contractors, Inc. v. Providence Hosp., 454 So.2d 496, 501 (Ala.1984). This Court held in Berkel that a subcontractor retained by the general contractor to install foundational pilings for a building could assert a negligence claim against the owner, Providence Hospital, for expenses incurred by the subcontractor in performing that work. 454 So.2d at 503. The Berkel Court noted six factors that should be analyzed to determine whether a party not in privity with the claimant owes the claimant a duty of care in a construction setting. Those six factors are as follows: `(1) [T]he extent to which the transaction was intended to affect the other person; (2) the foreseeability of harm to him; (3) the degree of certainty that he suffered injury; (4) the closeness of the connection between the defendant's conduct and the injury; (5) the moral blame attached to such conduct; and (6) the policy of preventing future harm.' 454 So.2d at 503 (quoting Howe v. Bishop, 446 So.2d 11, 15 (Ala.1984) (Torbert, C.J., concurring in the result), quoting in turn United Leasing Corp. v. Miller, 45 N.C.App. 400, 406-07, 263 S.E.2d 313, 318 (1980)). In Berkel the subcontractor encountered considerable difficulties installing the pilings in the manner specified in the original plans and presented evidence indicating that those specifications were defective. The Berkel Court concluded that, when the owner of the project site and architects changed specifications and directed continuation of the work, the owner owed a duty to the subcontractor for expenses incurred by the subcontractor in performing the work under the original plans. [16] 454 So.2d at 500, 503. Unlike Berkel, the complaint against TTL here does not concern alleged deficiencies in the design of the rock buttresses RaCON constructed. The gist of RaCON's claim is that TTL was negligent in recommending the use of any of those structures on the project to prevent slope failures or to remedy slope failures that had occurred. In determining whether TTL owed RaCON a duty under the multifactor test in Berkel, we first consider the extent to which the transaction was intended to affect RaCON. [17] In this analysis we consider the entire transaction (which included the bid process and the contract documents) and do not, as RaCON argues we should, limit our focus to TTL's decision to require the construction of rock buttresses or the alleged damage to RaCON that resulted from that decision. During the bid process, TTL's principal role was to assist BKI in developing specifications that would prevent or remedy slope failures. When TTL stated in its November 1999 report that rock buttresses will likely be required, the project had not been released for bid and TTL had no reason to anticipate that RaCON would perform the contract. Indeed, all the bidders were advised to include prices in their bids for 103,000 tons of riprap and 202,000 square yards of filter blanket, which quantities approximated the amount of materials needed for constructing buttresses. The contract also included a mechanism whereby, notwithstanding the number of rock buttresses that were required by the project engineer, the compensation to the contractor would be adjusted based on the quantities of materials it actually used to build those structures. [18] None of the applicable Berkel factors indicate that, in the bidding phase of the project, TTL owed a duty to RaCON. TTL's professional opinions were intended to aid BKI in advising the County as to methods to prevent slope failures. The rendering of those opinions was wholly neutral to all bidders, including RaCON. [19] Further, in the bid process, harm to RaCON was not foreseeable; certainty of injury to RaCON did not exist; and there was no connection between TTL's conduct and any damage to RaCON arising from TTL's recommendations to BKI on behalf of the County. [20] Moreover, the commencement of work by TTL in the spring of 2000 to design and specify the locations of the rock buttresses merely implemented TTL's recommendation in its pre-bid report rock buttresses will likely be required. In summary, viewing TTL's role in the project over the entirety of the transaction and applying the Berkel factors, we conclude that TTL did not owe RaCON a duty of care. The trial court's summary judgment on RaCON's negligence claim against TTL is affirmed. [21]