Design Firm Says It Should Be Free Of Bridge Claim

ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) — A California design firm asked the Minnesota Supreme Court on Monday to block the company from being sued by the state over the deadly 2007 interstate bridge collapse in Minneapolis that killed 13 people.

Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. of Pasadena, Calif., contends that it isn’t liable because too much time had passed since the bridge was built in the 1960s. The firm argues that state law puts a 10-year limit on liability and notes that the state had a 1962 contract with the bridge’s designer, a now-defunct company that Jacobs acquired in 1999.

“My client never touched the bridge,” James O’Connor, a Minneapolis attorney for Jacobs, told the six Supreme Court justices who heard the appeal. “The issue here is indemnity.”

Minnesota Solicitor General Alan Gilbert, who is representing the state, called the collapse “a horrific event” and urged the court to allow the lawsuit to continue. Gilbert argued that state lawmakers changed the liability law when they approved a compensation package for bridge collapse survivors.

Justice Helen M. Meyer questioned whether engineers or contractors would do business in Minnesota if they knew their immunity from lawsuits might be retroactively removed. While Gilbert pointed out the compensation legislation didn’t specifically name Jacobs, Meyer said, “This is the Legislature saying claims against this company can now be made.”

Along with the 13 people who died, 145 people were injured when the Mississippi River bridge broke apart during evening rush hour on Aug. 1, 2007. The Minnesota Court of Appeals allowed the state’s claims to go forward in August, prompting the company’s appeal to the state’s highest court. No decision was made Monday.

In a separate case, the Supreme Court also heard an appeal Monday from engineering firm URS Corp., which was hired to do consulting work on the bridge before its collapse. San Francisco-based URS is trying to sue Jacobs.

A three-judge appeals court panel tossed the lawsuit in August, ruling that public policy freed Jacobs from liability in 1977 and that Jacobs didn’t share any liability with URS.

Jocelyn Knoll, a Minneapolis attorney for URS, argued that while Jacobs’ 10-year liability may have expired, Jacobs still shared a common liability with URS and should be allowed to seek money damages from Jacobs. Knoll noted that Jacobs wasn’t sued by bridge collapse survivors, “so the flood gates (of lawsuits) did not open” for Jacobs.

Kirk Kolbo, another attorney for Jacobs, countered that Jacobs had no common liability with URS and that any liability had extinguished “long before the bridge collapsed.”

The court also took that case under advisement.

URS had a long-standing contract with the Minnesota Department of Transportation to evaluate the structural integrity of the 40-year-old Interstate 35W bridge and recommend ways to shore it up before it fell. A National Transportation Safety Board investigation found that too-thin gusset plates were a key cause of the collapse.

The state also sued URS, but both sides agreed to a $5 million settlement last year that averted a trial, which could have opened URS to punitive damages. Neither side admitted any liability or fault.

All told, the state and two of its contractors will have paid out at least $100 million to the families of those killed and injured.

(© Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)

  • Me

    I have to agree with the company. That may seem callous but it seems the correct assertion, to me.

  • WHAT?????

    I would agree, this just seems like it should not fall on the company that made the bridge. This should go to whoever inspected the bridge. If the company that made the bridge was responsible why did it take 45 years to fall?

  • tired of lawsuits

    I think it is time for the victims of this tragedy to move on. You have been compensated enough. Two months before the bridge collapsed our family lost a 10 year old daughter to a narcotic pain medication complication following her first night home from the hospital. It was a terrible accident, but one where there was no way of knowing the dose she was prescribed would kill her. You will never move on in your grief until you can forgive the perceived offending parties. Your loved one is gone and no amount of money will ever bring them back.. Do your self a favor and honor that love’s one memory by doing something positive.

  • Pete

    According to the article it is the State that is suing the design firm not the victims families or survivors. This looks like an attempt for the State to try and recover some of our money that was used to compensate victims. In some ways that could be seen as a good thing. The question seems to be “would the bridge have fallen if the State had kept up with inspections and maintenance” ? This should be a warning to all of us of what can happen when we keep demanding tax cuts all the time, we can’t have it both ways at some point the scale tips and things, not just bridges, fall down. We all need to “take the blame” and move on.

  • Chris K

    The state cheaped out on maintenance & people died. Not sure how a 50 year old design & build is at fault.

  • HDC

    blame shifting.
    Dow Chemical Company made and supplied herbicide orange, aka agent orange, during the vietnam war, back in 1965. try and sue that company and youll be laughed outta the courtroom, yet the death tole still climbs.
    The bridge collapse was an accident due to neglect. thats it. thank god only 13 people died. coulda been worse.

blog comments powered by Disqus
Weather App
Thursday Night Football

Listen Live