Opinion ID: 2378871
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Does an engineer's duty of care extend to the class of harm suffered by SMS?

Text: ¶ 26 LTK argues it had no obligation with respect to risks of harm to the business expectancies of third parties. LTK argues that SMS was in a position to negotiate better contract terms with the City, but SMS accepted the risk that the City could hire an engineer whose negligence would cause extensive property damage to the monorail and business losses. LTK suggests that SMS made a deal, and we should hold SMS to its bargain. As LTK has framed it, the issue is whether the duty of care assumed by an engineering firm extends to the business expectancies of a company with a commercial interest in the property on which the engineering firm worked. However, the question here is whether an engineer's duty of care extends to safety risks of physical damage to the property on which the engineer works. We hold it does. As we have already observed, the harm in this case exemplifies the safety-insurance concerns that are at the foundation of tort law. A fire broke out suddenly on the Seattle Monorail's blue train, endangering people and causing extensive physical damage to property. Given the safety interest that justifies imposing a duty of care on engineers, LTK was obligated to act as a reasonably prudent engineer would with respect to safety risks of physical damage. ¶ 27 When a defendant is under a duty of care with respect to certain risks of harm and admits breach, as LTK assumes here, the connection between the breach and the plaintiff's injury becomes a factual question of proximate cause. Eastwood, at 1267, 241 P.3d 1256. The court decides whether a reasonable juror could conclude that the plaintiff's injury was within the scope of the risks of harm, which the court has held the defendant owed a duty of care to avoid. Id. at 1265, 241 P.3d 1256. Here, we have held an engineer, such as LTK, had a duty of care with respect to safety risks of physical damage. Because no reasonable jury would find a risk of fire fell outside the scope of LTK's duty of care, proximate causation is not disputable. The simultaneous realization of a risk of harm to SMS's business expectancy is irrelevant. By itself, a breach of LTK's tort duty with respect to safety risks is sufficient to state a claim. [5]