When a major accident at a construction site occurs, the parties often point the blame at the engineer tasked to oversee the project.  In the ongoing In re 91st Street Crane Collapse Litigation, the Appellate Division, First Department recently ruled on the claimed liability of the engineering firm hired to oversee the construction project.

Plaintiffs, construction workers who were injured or killed when the crane collapsed and fell to the ground, claimed that the professional engineering firm negligently inspected the crane and should have noticed that the turntable mechanism connecting the operator’s cab to the tower contained defective steel welding, which allegedly caused the cab to break loose and fall to the ground.

In support of the motion for summary judgment, the engineering firm’s principal had stated that the services it was retained to provide largely concerned the capacity of the site to accommodate the massive tower crane, as well as the proper installation and placement of the crane to allow it to operate without obstruction, and that these duties did not include inspection of the component parts of the crane.

Based upon the foregoing, the appellate court found that the engineering firm’s inspection was limited in scope, and did not amount to an assurance that the crane’s internal parts were free of defects. Thus, the Court held that the engineering firm did not have the opportunity to “avoid or correct the unsafe condition” and cannot be held liable for negligent inspection of the crane.

The First Department further held that the engineering firm established its entitlement to summary dismissal of the Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 241-a claims, since there was no evidence that the engineering firm had any duty or authority to direct that any action be taken by the owner or contractor in response to its inspection.

Thanks to Jorgelina Foglietta for her contribution to this post.  For more information, please write to Mike Bono.