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

Heading: Design Plans and Specifications

Text: ¶ 23 In addition to limiting the immunity in question to professional services on the site of the construction project, the statute also excludes from immunity the negligent preparation of design plans and specifications. The trial judge found that [t]he Irving proposal to separate sludge flows referenced above in these Findings constitutes negligent preparation of a design plan within the meaning of RCW 51.24.035(2). CP at 3128. CH2M contends that since it put no relevant plans or specifications in writing, this statutory safe harbor for actions based on negligent design plans and specifications does not apply. Br. of App. at 45. ¶ 24 A similar argument was rejected by the Kansas Supreme Court under the Kansas design professional immunity statute. [7] Edwards v. Anderson Eng'g, Inc., 284 Kan. 892, 894, 166 P.3d 1047 (2007). There, a general contractor had hired an engineering firm to test the quality of pipes used in a project after some failed. An engineer working for the firm directed an employee of the contractor to cut a pipe at specific points for testing. At some point, shortly after the Anderson engineer had left, the pipe split lengthwise and rolled outward, causing Edwards to fall and be crushed when the pipe rolled back. Id. The design firm argued, among other things, that it had prepared no plans or specifications and therefore could not be negligent in so doing. The Kansas legislature, like its Washington counterpart, had not statutorily defined design plans and specifications and the engineering firm suggest[ed] that the common understanding in the construction industry is that those terms refer to blueprint drawings and written specifications for the quantity and quality of materials. Id. at 903, 166 P.3d 1047. The court rejected that argument: Anderson was charged with the responsibility of testing the pipe. In order to perform its professional responsibilities, Anderson required that the concrete pipe be cut into four pieces and gave specific directions on the location of the cut lines. We perceive no appreciable distinction between providing the specifications for pipe cutting through a professional drawing or by physically marking on the pipe. Id. ¶ 25 We agree with the Kansas Supreme Court and perceive no appreciable difference in recommending a change in the piping of the sludge and the locations of the skillets under CH2M's on call service agreement and preparing written plans and specifications to accomplish the same thing. We find it difficult to believe that the legislature intended to allow design professionals to escape liability for negligent work by not writing down their plans or specifications.