46 Journal of American Law // Spring 2015
(Wash. 2011), the Washington Supreme Court considered
a claim against an engineering firm by an injured employ-
ee of a third party. Applying Rev. Code Wash. (ARCW) ยง
51.24, the court held that the statute was valid and that en-
gineers and architects are immune to claims arising from
injuries to third parties at construction projects if all the el-
ements are met. However, the court denied summary judg-
ment for the engineering firm because a question existed
regarding whether the firm's negligent design caused the
worker's injuries and whether the site of the injury actually
was a construction project.
12
Conclusion
Design professionals acutely are aware of the need to manage
their practices to minimize liability exposure to design er-
rors and omissions. However, few fully appreciate the extent
of their exposure to liability for construction worker injuries
when they contract for construction phase services. While
well-crafed contracts and adherence to best practices pro-
vide a sound defense, it is in the claimant's interest to portray
the project architect or engineer as the all-knowing, all-see-
ing professional who has the duty to monitor, detect, and
cure unsafe work site conditions and practices. Fifeen states
have adopted a public policy to protect design professionals
from this liability exposure provided they do not contract to
control the site or manage safety practices. Tese immunity
provisions embedded within the states' workers' compen-
sation laws may provide an absolute defense to worker in-
jury claims. Prudent design professionals and their counsel
should keep abreast of the status of these laws in the states
where they practice.
12
See also, Bauer v. Howard S. Wright Constr. Co., 2000 Wash. App.
LEXIS 1227.