Page 165 - Forensic Structural Engineering Handbook

4.14 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES

were on the bridge at the time, engaged in the apparently popular activity of forcing the
bridge to swing from side to side. It was during one such episode that the bridge collapsed
Five people were killed and dozens were injured.
In 1982, seven years prior to the collapse, an engineering study evaluated and analyzed
the bridge, and came to the opinion that the bridge was sound and that it could provide ade-
quate service for as long as an additional century. The engineer recommended further study
be carried out, and although the bridge cables were free of rust, he recommended a protec-
tive coating be applied. The County did not follow the engineer’s recommendations.
The victims and their relatives sued the county, charging it with failure to warn of the
hazard presented by the bridge. The court ruled against the plaintiffs, stating, “Mere knowl-
edge of danger to the individual does not create an affirmative duty to protect.” The pedes-
trians caused the collapse and the County had nothing to do with it. The court apparently
decided the defendants did not have to warn anyone, and the plaintiffs had to bear the con-
sequences of their actions themselves.
This finding may not have been the conclusion of a court in a different jurisdiction, one
where juries are more sympathetic to plaintiffs. If it were known the bridge could be dam-
aged by being forced to swing back and forth, or if that fact should have been known, and
if it were known that pedestrians regularly engaged in such activity, a more sympathetic
court may have found the engineer who evaluated Swinging Bridge negligent in his failure
to warn of the dangers. This tragedy could certainly have been prevented.

REFERENCES

1. Kardon, Joshua Ben, “The Standard of Care of Structural Engineers,” Dissertation, Doctor of
Philosophy in Engineering, Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California,
Berkeley Publisher, UMI Dissertation Services, 2003.
2. Hammurabi, World Book Encyclopedia, 1989, World Book, Inc., Chicago.
3. Jacob Feld, Construction Failure, Wiley, New York, 1968.
4. Paxton v. County of Alameda 119 C. A. 2d 393, 398, 259 P. 2d 934 (1953).
5. City of Mounds View v. Walijarvi 263 N. W. 2d 420, 424 (Minn. 1978).
6. Gagne v. Bertran 43 Cal. 2d 481, 275 P. 2d 15 (1954).
7. Markman v. Hoefler 252 Iowa 118, 106 N. W. 2d 59 (1960).
8. Robertson Lumber Co. v. Stephan Farmers Cooperative Elevators 274 Minn. 17, 143 N. W. 2d
622 (1966).
9. Jack D. Bakos, Jr., and Randall J. Hake, “Professional Liability Exposure of Casual Consultants,”
Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, vol. 113,
no. 4, October, 1987.
10. Huang v. Garner 157 Cal.App.3d 404 (1984).
11. Dobler v. Malloy. North Dakota 214 N. W. 510 (1973).
12. Air Heaters v. Johnson North Dakota 258 N. W. 2d 649 (1977).
13. Kriegler v. Eichler Homes, Inc. 269 Cal. App. 2d 224, 74 Cal. Rptr. 749 (1969).
14. Insurance Co. of North America v. Radiant Electric 55 Mich App. 410 222 N. W. 2d 323 (1974).
15. Arkansas Rice Growers Coop v. Alchemy Ind. 797 F. 2d 565 (8th Cir 1986).
16. James Acret, Architects and Engineers, 2d ed., Shepard’s/McGraw-Hill, Colorado Springs, CO,
1991.
17. Justin Sweet, Legal Aspects of Architecture, Engineering and the Construction Process, 3d ed.,
West Publishing, St. Paul, MN, 1985.
18. Goodwin v. Reilley 176 Cal.App.3d 86, 221 Cal. Rptr. 374, 376 (1985).
19. Morris v. Horton 22 Cal.App.4th 968, 27 Cal. Rptr. 2d 585 (1994).
20. David B. Resnik, The Ethics of Science: An Introduction, Routledge, London, 1998.