Company designed and built a processing plant for the manufacture of an explosive chemical. Engineer was retained by Company to design a filter system for the processing plant. She prepared an application for a permit to build the plant’s filter system and submitted it to the state’s Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). As required by DEP regulations, Engineer submitted a blueprint to the DEP with the application for permit. The blueprint showed the entire facility and was signed and sealed by her as a licensed professional engineer.
After the project was completed, a portion of the processing plant exploded, injuring Plaintiff. During discovery in an action by Plaintiff against Engineer, it was established that the explosion was caused by a design defect in the processing plant that was unrelated to the filter system designed by Engineer.
In that action, will Plaintiff prevail?
A. Yes, if Engineer signed, sealed, and submitted a blueprint that showed the design defect.
B. Yes, because all of the plant’s designer are jointly and severally liable for the defect.
C. No, because Engineer owed no duty to Plaintiff to prevent the particular risk of harm.
D. No, if Engineer was an independent contractor.
{ 10 comments… read them below or add one }
I pick answer choice C.
I will choose D. In this case the company will be strictly liable for plaintiffs injuries, but if engineer is an independant contractor and her filter system had nothing to do with the explosion, she should escape liability.
Answer C is correct. Plaintiff was injured by a design defect in the processing plant that was unrelated to the filter system design. Engineer owed no duty to prevent harm to Plaintiff caused by design defects unrelated to his design of the processing plant’s filter system that injured Plaintiff.
Answer A is incorrect. Engineer owed no duty to prevent harm to Plaintiff caused by design defects unrelated to his design of the processing plant’s filter system. The fact that Engineer signed, sealed, and submitted a blueprint does not change his lack of duty.
Answer B is incorrect. All of the plant’s designers are not jointly and severally liable for the design defect. Engineer only owed Plaintiff the duty to submit a blueprint for the processing plant’s filtration system.
Answer D is incorrect. Engineer could still be liable even if he was an independent contractor.
C. Their injury was not caused, either actually or proximately, by the Engineer.
C
answer c.
c
Answer C
C. The Engineer owed no duty to the Plaintiff to prevent explosions.
Answer – D!