Review and approval by state and federal authorities of a highway design did not provide immunity to the design engineers from personal injury claims. See Ives v. HMB Pro. Eng'rs, 2024 WL 2487850, 2024 Ky. App. LEXIS 41 (Ct. App. May 24, 2024).
Facts of the Case
This personal injury lawsuit arose from a single-vehicle accident
on Interstate 65 in Kentucky during heavy rainfall. The vehicle hydroplaned,
resulting in the death of passenger Ives and severe injuries to driver Copley. Both
were employees of the same architectural firm on a business trip.
The estate of Ives initially sued Copley and an insurer but later
added several engineering firms that were responsible for the design of the section
of Interstate 65 where the accident occurred. Copley also filed claims against the
engineers, alleging negligent design related to roadway drainage.
The engineering firms ("Engineers") were retained by the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC) to design the widening of Interstate 65 from 4 to 6 lanes—a 14-year undertaking. The Engineers' work included preparing and submitting design plans to the KYTC and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for approval.
The estate's expert claimed that the Engineers' design omitted
drainage inlets in the area of the accident, leading to water pooling on the roadway
during rainfall, which significantly increased the risk of hydroplaning. The
Engineers argued that their design had been approved by KYTC and FHWA, and thus they
were immune from liability.
The trial court agreed, granting summary judgment in favor of the
Engineers. The estate and Copley appealed.
The Court's Analysis
The Kentucky Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, holding that the Engineers were not immune from liability for alleged design negligence despite the approval of their plans. The court drew a distinction between contractors and engineers, noting that the purpose of having the state involved in public improvements was to lay out the projects and to tell the contractor where to do the work. The Kentucky Court of Appeals noted that contractors are merely doing what they are instructed. Contractors are not engineering the job and laying it out. So long as contractors do their work as instructed by superiors and do the work in a workman like manner, i.e., not negligently, then the contractors have no liability under existing case law.
Engineers, however, are hired specifically for their expertise in designing safe and effective plans. Their work involves professional judgment and discretion, which carries a duty of care. The Kentucky Court of Appeals noted that contractors "do not have 'a common law duty to second guess or reevaluate the engineering plans provided to them' by their principal if they were not hired to provide their engineering expertise."
In this case, the court noted that it is necessary to determine
what these Engineers were hired to do. According to a KYTC branch manager, the
Engineers were responsible for designing the plans for the rewidening project and
then submitting those plans for approval by KYTC and the FHWA. The court noted that
this is not a case where the work was merely the implementation of a design plan
already prepared. The court held that the "Engineers' work was to use their
expertise to prepare the design plans. The Engineers were required to do much more
than mechanically adhere to predetermined design standards; they were required to
use their skill and expertise to assess whether a design exception was necessary,
and, if so, to recommend a suitable and safe alternative."
The Engineers pointed out that their design, including all
exceptions to KYTC requirements, was accepted and approved by the KYTC and FHWA.
Once approved, the argument went on that the Engineers had no discretion to deviate.
The Kentucky Court of Appeals acknowledged this was true; however, it held that
acceptance/approval by these governmental entities, even under statute, cannot
absolve the Engineers from their own design negligence in the face of the
allegations that the Engineers' negligence caused death or bodily injury.
Lessons Learned
For design professionals, this case tells them they need to ensure their designs are rigorously reviewed and account for foreseeable safety risks. Approval by governmental agencies does not eliminate the duty to exercise professional care.
For those involved in design litigation, note should be made of how alleged design flaws can contribute to accidents or injuries, even if the design was approved by state or federal entities.
This case underscores the importance of accountability and professional responsibility in public infrastructure projects, particularly those with safety implications.
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.
Review and approval by state and federal authorities of a highway design did not provide immunity to the design engineers from personal injury claims. See Ives v. HMB Pro. Eng'rs, 2024 WL 2487850, 2024 Ky. App. LEXIS 41 (Ct. App. May 24, 2024).
Facts of the Case
This personal injury lawsuit arose from a single-vehicle accident on Interstate 65 in Kentucky during heavy rainfall. The vehicle hydroplaned, resulting in the death of passenger Ives and severe injuries to driver Copley. Both were employees of the same architectural firm on a business trip.
The estate of Ives initially sued Copley and an insurer but later added several engineering firms that were responsible for the design of the section of Interstate 65 where the accident occurred. Copley also filed claims against the engineers, alleging negligent design related to roadway drainage.
The engineering firms ("Engineers") were retained by the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC) to design the widening of Interstate 65 from 4 to 6 lanes—a 14-year undertaking. The Engineers' work included preparing and submitting design plans to the KYTC and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for approval.
The estate's expert claimed that the Engineers' design omitted drainage inlets in the area of the accident, leading to water pooling on the roadway during rainfall, which significantly increased the risk of hydroplaning. The Engineers argued that their design had been approved by KYTC and FHWA, and thus they were immune from liability.
The trial court agreed, granting summary judgment in favor of the Engineers. The estate and Copley appealed.
The Court's Analysis
The Kentucky Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, holding that the Engineers were not immune from liability for alleged design negligence despite the approval of their plans. The court drew a distinction between contractors and engineers, noting that the purpose of having the state involved in public improvements was to lay out the projects and to tell the contractor where to do the work. The Kentucky Court of Appeals noted that contractors are merely doing what they are instructed. Contractors are not engineering the job and laying it out. So long as contractors do their work as instructed by superiors and do the work in a workman like manner, i.e., not negligently, then the contractors have no liability under existing case law.
Engineers, however, are hired specifically for their expertise in designing safe and effective plans. Their work involves professional judgment and discretion, which carries a duty of care. The Kentucky Court of Appeals noted that contractors "do not have 'a common law duty to second guess or reevaluate the engineering plans provided to them' by their principal if they were not hired to provide their engineering expertise."
In this case, the court noted that it is necessary to determine what these Engineers were hired to do. According to a KYTC branch manager, the Engineers were responsible for designing the plans for the rewidening project and then submitting those plans for approval by KYTC and the FHWA. The court noted that this is not a case where the work was merely the implementation of a design plan already prepared. The court held that the "Engineers' work was to use their expertise to prepare the design plans. The Engineers were required to do much more than mechanically adhere to predetermined design standards; they were required to use their skill and expertise to assess whether a design exception was necessary, and, if so, to recommend a suitable and safe alternative."
The Engineers pointed out that their design, including all exceptions to KYTC requirements, was accepted and approved by the KYTC and FHWA. Once approved, the argument went on that the Engineers had no discretion to deviate. The Kentucky Court of Appeals acknowledged this was true; however, it held that acceptance/approval by these governmental entities, even under statute, cannot absolve the Engineers from their own design negligence in the face of the allegations that the Engineers' negligence caused death or bodily injury.
Lessons Learned
For design professionals, this case tells them they need to ensure their designs are rigorously reviewed and account for foreseeable safety risks. Approval by governmental agencies does not eliminate the duty to exercise professional care.
For those involved in design litigation, note should be made of how alleged design flaws can contribute to accidents or injuries, even if the design was approved by state or federal entities.
This case underscores the importance of accountability and professional responsibility in public infrastructure projects, particularly those with safety implications.
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.