No doubt: someone was negligent in the collapse of the Big Dig tunnel in Boston that killed one. The Latin phrase res ipsa loquitur comes to mind.
But it’s hard to understand why Massachusetts officials are going after Powers Fasteners, Inc.
Powers received an order for standard-set epoxy to be used in the tunnel ceiling, and sold $1287 worth. The construction company then used a different, fast-set, epoxy that was not designed for such long-term use. As a result, ceiling panels fell, crushing a car and killing one person. But Massachusetts is indicting Powers. Given that the penalty is a $1000 fine, the only purpose of this use of taxpayer dollars is to carry water for trial lawyers—or, perhaps, to help spread blame in the eventual suit against the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority by having a criminal conviction in hand. (Pam Belluck, “Glue Maker for Big Dig Is Charged in ’06 Death”, New York Times, Aug. 9).
As Bill Childs notes, attorneys predict a “big” settlement. Press coverage already indicates typical attorney 20/20 hindsight:
For instance, documents show that Big Dig managers at Bechtel/ Parsons Brinckerhoff and designers from Gannett Fleming cut by half the number of bolts they originally planned to use to hold up the ceiling, while significantly increasing the ceiling’s weight by making it out of concrete. These moves made the ceiling cheaper, the lawyers said, but less safe.
This, of course, is the wrong question. It sounds suspiciously like the use of a single document taken out of context of a normal design-planning process. (Is strict liability plus punitive damages to be imposed every time a design firm doesn’t adopt the most stringent and expensive design it considers?) The correct question is whether the actual design, implemented correctly, would have safely stayed up. If so, the design team didn’t act negligently if the failure was because of faulty installation; it is a question of mathematics that should be resolved in one direction or the other on summary judgment, as there should be no duty to design a large margin of error against a construction crew using the wrong epoxy.
5 Comments
The NTSB’s statement provides a bit more background, although it’s certainly still confusing. The NTSB refers to the use of a different epoxy “formulation”:
“Contributing to the accident was the failure of Powers to determine that the anchor displacement that was found in the high-occupancy vehicle tunnel in 1999 was a result of anchor creep due to the use of the company’s Fast Set epoxy, which was known by the company to have poor long-term load characteristics. The information that was provided by Powers regarding its Power-Fast epoxy was inadequate and misleading. This resulted in Modern Continental Company (Modern Continental) using the Fast Set formulation of the epoxy for the adhesive anchors in the tunnel even though that formulation had been shown through testing to be subject to creep under sustained tension loading, the Board found.”
This seems to say that there’s only one brand of epoxy at issue here (that of Power Fasteners), which can be mixed to different strengths and drying speeds based on the needs of a particular job. If I’m reading the NTSB right, Power Fasteners somehow misrepresented the characteristics of its epoxy under these different formulations.
Still, while this arguably could constitute negligence, it does seem aggressive to pursue criminal charges here. Maybe the DA has some internal communications evidencing a cover-up, but that’s not apparent from the public record at this point.
Here is the full Powers statement, who are rather explicit in their claim that they did provide adequate information, and object that they were not permitted to perform testing that would have revealed the problem.
I’ve personally worked with the stuff, there’s no way the epoxy people would have ever signed off on the way the epoxy was used, of all the folks responsible for the collapse the epoxy people are the least culpable.
The design, installation, inspection and oversight were all negligent, the epoxy was fine.
No epoxy manufacturer would ever advocate such a lame ass use of their product.
The illegal alien glue squirters probably laughed while installing the vertical rods from the ceiling.
Engineering wasn’t necessary to spot this design flaw, common sense should have been enough, not only should all the contractors lose their licenses permanently so should the inspectors and engineers-especially the engineers-on top of punitive damages.
I’m hesitant to levy any liability on the construction grunts, they’re not paid to render opinions but you can bet they didn’t walk below their own work.
I believe there’s still a huge collapse peril and an intentional car bomb would certainly create a pressure wave which might bring down all the panels in the tunnel at once killing hundreds or even thousands more.
I’ve personally worked with the stuff, there’s no way the epoxy people would have ever signed off on the way the epoxy was used, of all the folks responsible for the collapse the epoxy people are the least culpable.
The design, installation, inspection and oversight were all negligent, the epoxy was fine.
No epoxy manufacturer would ever advocate such a lame ass use of their product.
The illegal alien glue squirters probably laughed while installing the vertical rods from the ceiling.
Engineering wasn’t necessary to spot this design flaw, common sense should have been enough, not only should all the contractors lose their licenses permanently so should the inspectors and engineers-especially the engineers-on top of punitive damages.
I’m hesitant to levy any liability on the construction grunts, they’re not paid to render opinions but you can bet they didn’t walk below their own work.
I believe there’s still a huge collapse peril and an intentional car bomb would certainly create a pressure wave which might bring down all the panels in the tunnel at once killing hundreds or even thousands more.
Looking at their website, the Standard Set and Fast Set do seem to be two separate products, and not one product that is mixable two different ways. In light of that fact, I now think the NTSB’s statement seems downright misleading. Maybe there’s evidence we don’t know about yet, but why wouldn’t such evidence be public? I agree with Ted that the company sounds like it has a solid defense.