In a case of protracted litigation, the Illinois appellate court addressed the duty owed by design professionals to motorists when designing roadways in Illinois. In Thompson v. Gordon (Ill. App. Ct. 2nd Dist., Nov. 19, 2009 2009 WL 3969619), the estate of a deceased motorist brought an action against engineering firms that had contracted with shopping mall developers to design a roadway interchange and replacement for a bridge deck. The plaintiff alleged negligent design following a fatal automobile accident. At issue was the scope of the design professionals' duty. The design professionals moved for summary judgment.
The plaintiff responded by submitting an affidavit from a civil engineer who stated that the design professionals failed to properly consider and analyze all the available data provided by their consultants pertaining to traffic capacities and weave lane failures that would result from the overall project. The civil engineer opined that the design defendants were aware or should have been aware of the vaulting characteristic of the existing median and should have been on notice that the proposed work was dangerous and likely to cause injury. The plaintiffs' case was based on a vehicle losing control, hitting a median separating traffic and vaulting into the opposite traffic lanes. The plaintiff alleged a failure of the design defendants to design the bridge deck without considering a median barrier that would have prevented this type of an accident. Despite the expert's affidavit, the trial court granted the motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case against the designers.
The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, holding that there was a question of fact as to whether design professionals owed a duty. The court emphasized that its analysis began with the contract that defines the scope of the defendant's duty and reaffirmed that this duty will not be extended beyond the terms of the contract. They looked at the language of the contract which was quite clear that the design professionals were only to design plans for a bridge deck replacement, not design plans for an improved bridge deck.
The court concluded summary judgment was not appropriate because the plaintiffs had submitted an affidavit from a civil engineer indicating that an engineer acting within the standard of care while creating plans to replace a deck should have considered and designed an improved median barrier. In other words, the court allowed the civil engineer to subtly expand the contractual obligations of the engineers. The court rejected the argument proposed by the defendant designers that their work could not have been the proximate cause of the accident, finding that there can be multiple causes for a particular accident.
