Opinion ID: 2453299
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Construction Projects

Text: ¶ 17 The immunity found in RCW 51.24.035(1) is limited by its terms to a design professional performing professional services on a construction project or any employee of a design professional assisting or representing the design professional performing professional services on the site of the construction project. The trial judge found that the area of the plant where the skillets were installed was not a construction project nor a construction site within the meaning of RCW 51.24.035(1). CP at 3128 (FOF 94). Whether or not the area where the act of alleged negligence occurred was a construction site is a question of fact. We review questions of fact for substantial evidence. See Soltero, 159 Wash.2d at 433, 150 P.3d 552, (citing Nordstrom Credit, 120 Wash.2d at 942, 845 P.2d 1331). CH2M argues that as a matter of law, the immunity statute unquestionably applies to any building complex where some construction was occurring and that no reasonable person could fail to find that the accident took place on a construction project or on a construction site. Br. of Appellant at 43, 45. ¶ 18 Turning first to whether the statute unquestionably applies, we note that construction project and site of a construction project are not defined statutory terms under Title 51 RCW or relevant administrative regulations. Undefined common statutory terms are given their common dictionary meanings unless there is strong evidence the legislature intended something else. City of Spokane ex rel. Wastewater Mgmt. Dep't v. Dep't of Revenue, 145 Wash.2d 445, 454, 38 P.3d 1010 (2002) (citing State v. Pacheco, 125 Wash.2d 150, 154, 882 P.2d 183 (1994)). The first nongrammatical definition of construction in Webster's is the act of putting parts together to form a complete integrated object: Fabrication. Webster's Third New International Dictionary 489 (2003). Construction project is not defined in Webster's, but project is defined primarily as a specific plan or design, and site is defined as the local position of building, town, monument, or similar work either constructed or to be constructed esp. in connection with its surroundings... a space of ground occupied or to be occupied by a building. Id. at 1813, 2128. [4] Taken together, it appears that a construction site is a space of ground occupied or to be occupied by a building that is or will be put[] ... together to form a complete integrated object. A construction project would be the overarching plan and process of so completing a building (or other structure). ¶ 19 While the trial court made no specific, relevant finding of fact, the findings imply, and the evidence supports, that some parts of the sewage plant campus were under construction. Finding of fact 94 tells us that at all pertinent times prior to and on May 10, 2004, the area of the plant where the skillets were installed was not a construction project nor a construction site within the meaning of RCW 51.24.035(1). CP at 3128. Timothy Pelton, the administrative superintendent of the plant, testified that the nearest construction was several hundred feet away. 8 RP (Sept. 17, 2008) at 1114-15. Thus, it appears that there was construction occurring on the sewage treatment campus. The question is whether the existence of construction somewhere on the campus triggers the immunity of RCW 51.24.035. ¶ 20 We conclude it does not. Clearly, if no construction was occurring on the campus, the immunity provisions of RCW 51.24.035 would not be at issue. CH2M's contract with the city contemplated at least two main activities. One was to retrofit the Spokane Riverside Wastewater Treatment Plant and the other was to maintain the plant to continue to function as it had on a day to day basis. [5] The city and CH2M specifically memorialized this by modifying their contract in 2003, providing, in part, that CH2M would design and manage an upgrade to and redesign of the recirculation and heating system for the digestors, and that CH2M would provide `on-call' services for plant operations. CP at 3110 (FOF 15). The specific design work done to redirect the sludge to address the temperature problem was part of CH2M's on call contract for plant operations and would have been needed whether or not there was any construction occurring on the campus. We agree with the trial court that the placement of the skillets was not a construction project. ¶ 21 CH2M argues that whether or not the discrete act of alleged negligence was related to construction is immaterial. CH2M argues it has immunity for any professional services rendered on a construction project site and that the entire wastewater treatment facility was a construction site within the meaning of the statute. An aerial photograph of the Spokane wastewater treatment facility shows at least a dozen buildings and several parking lots, not unlike our own capitol campus. The record before us does not suggest that any construction was taking place within the digesters themselves. At trial, the superintendent of the plant testified that at the time, the closest construction was either the new aeration basin or rebuilding of the link between the administration building and process building ... several hundred feet away. 8 VRP (Sept. 17, 2008) at 1114-15. We do not believe that the legislature meant that when construction was performed on one building on a campus, engineering professionals were entitled to immunity everywhere on the campus regardless of the nature of their professional services. ¶ 22 We must read statutes in context with the whole statutory scheme, which in this case includes both the injunction to construe the title liberally in favor of reducing suffering and the private suit provision. Rivas v. Overlake Hosp. Med. Ctr., 164 Wash.2d 261, 266-67, 189 P.3d 753 (2008); RCW 51.24.030; RCW 51.12.010. Taken as a whole, it appears to us that the legislature intended to protect design engineers from the sort of liability imposed on general contractors for workplace negligence, but not to protect them from their own negligence. [6] Given that the plaintiffs do not allege that CH2M failed to provide them a safe construction site, and given that there was no construction occurring in Digester 3, we agree with the trial judge that this provision provides the defendants no immunity.