Illinois Supreme Court Rejects an Expert Witness's Expanded Duty of Care
May 2011
When design professionals need to respond
to claims that their "professional duty" imposes obligations to third
parties that go beyond the terms of the contract with the clients, an
Illinois Supreme Court holding provides some guidance and support to the
design professionals.
by Kenneth
A. Slavens
Husch Blackwell LLP
The Illinois Supreme Court has held that, although the engineers named in
a lawsuit may be required to perform the contract with the client in accord
with the acceptable standard of care, this does not mean that the
professional's duties to third parties can be expanded beyond the services
the professional contracted to provide. The opinion was handed down in
Thompson v. Gordon, No. 1100662011, 2011 Ill.
LEXIS 458 (Sup. Ct. March 28, 2011).
The holding of Thompson v. Gordon buoys a
recent trend of courts that has constricted retained expert witness efforts
to impose duties beyond the professional services contracts by rendering
opinion testimony that a duty, though not in the contract, arises from an
amorphous standard of care obligation. The court distinguished the
professional liability claims against design professionals where the duties
arise from contracts apart from other professionals, such as health care
professionals, where no contractual specifics exist. The court recognized
that, in a suit such as this, the duty of care involves a contractual duty
and is controlled thereby.
Factual Background
In the Thompson lawsuit, the engineers
contracted to provide engineering services to the developer of a shopping
mall. To accommodate increased traffic anticipated by the development,
certain highways near the development required improvement and some
modification. The work included roadway and ramp improvements as well as the
replacement of an existing bridge deck. The bridge deck, as originally
constructed, had a concrete median that was 6 inches high and 4 feet wide.
The replacement bridge deck, as designed by the defendant engineers, had a
median that was 7 inches high and 4 feet wide.
Following completion of the project, the plaintiff and some family
members were traveling westbound across the bridge. Gordon was traveling
eastbound and lost control of her vehicle while trying to avoid a third
vehicle. The Gordon vehicle hit the median, became airborne, and landed on
the top of plaintiff's family vehicle. The accident killed two members of
the plaintiff's family and seriously injured the plaintiff.
In the plaintiff's lawsuit against the engineers who designed the bridge
deck, among others, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant engineers
should have designed a "Jersey barrier" for the roadway. The barrier, the
plaintiff claimed, would have prevented the Gordon vehicle from becoming
airborne.
To support the claims against the defendant engineers, the plaintiff
retained an expert witness engineer who rendered the opinion that the
defendant engineers failed to meet the standard of care required of their
profession because the defendant engineers failed to consider crossover
protection and failed to perform an analysis of crossover protection for the
bridge deck. The expert engineer explained that crossover accidents are
likely to occur and that the purpose of the Jersey barrier is to prevent
vehicles from crossing over into oncoming traffic. The expert witness
engineer concluded that, had the defendant engineers performed within the
standard of care, they would have more than likely designed and installed a
Jersey barrier, and the barrier would have prevented the accident.
The defendant engineers argued that the contract with the developer did
not require a median barrier design or analysis of the need for such a
barrier.
Holding of the Court
The Illinois Supreme Court recited the principal that, in suits alleging
professional negligence, the burden of establishing the standard of care
through expert testimony is on the party asserting the claim. In this
lawsuit, that would be the plaintiff. The court noted that, to be successful
on a claim of professional negligence, the plaintiff must establish both the
required standard of care and a deviation from that standard of care. This
is what the plaintiff attempted to do with the opinions rendered by the
expert engineer.
However, the Illinois Supreme Court pointed out that the expert engineer
failed to take into account the defendant engineers' contract with the
developer that set forth the defendant engineers' standard of care. The
contract required that the defendant engineers exercise "the degree of skill
and diligence normally employed by professional engineers or consultants
performing the same or similar services"
(emphasis added by the court).
Based on the contract, the court concluded that the defendant engineers'
standard of care was limited to the degree of skill and diligence normally
employed by professional engineers "replacing" the bridge deck. The court
went on to say that "replacing" the bridge deck did not include "improving"
the bridge deck or considering adding a Jersey barrier. In other analysis
within the opinion, the Illinois Supreme Court concluded that the parties to
the defendant engineers' contract used the words "replacing" and "improving"
to mean different things and that if the developer had wanted to retain the
defendant engineers to "improve" the bridge deck, the language of the
contract would have said so.
The court concluded that the expert engineer's opinion, if the court
accepted it, would impose an obligation on the defendant engineers that was
not found in the contract. Such an imposition would be contrary to
well-settled law that a court cannot alter, change, or modify the terms of a
contract or add new terms or conditions.
The court concluded that the correct holding was that the terms of the
defendant engineers' contract with the developer circumscribed the defendant
engineers' duty to the plaintiff and the scope of that duty. The contract
with the developer did not require the defendant engineers to consider or
design an "improved" median barrier. Therefore, the court found in favor of
the defendant engineers on the claims of the plaintiff for professional
negligence.
Opinions expressed in Expert Commentary articles are those of the author and are
not necessarily held by the author's employer or IRMI. Expert Commentary articles
and other IRMI Online content do not purport to provide legal, accounting, or other
professional advice or opinion. If such advice is needed, consult with your attorney,
accountant, or other qualified adviser.