Bruce v. Byrne-Stevens & Associates Engineers, Inc.
Washington Supreme Court
113 Wash. 2d 123, 776 P.2d 666 (1989)
- Written by Sharon Feldman, JD
Facts
Robert Bruce and Mildred Smallwood (plaintiffs) sued a neighbor whose excavation work caused subsidence in the soil of Bruce and Smallwood’s properties. Bruce and Smallwood retained Byrne-Stevens & Associates Engineers, Inc. (Byrne-Stevens) (defendant) to testify as to the cost of stabilizing the soil. Patrick Byrne (defendant), the principal of Byrne-Stevens, testified at trial. Bruce and Smallwood obtained a judgment for damages in the amounts calculated by Byrne. The cost of stabilizing the soil turned out to be double the amount of Byrne’s estimate. Bruce and Smallwood sued Byrne-Stevens and Byrne, alleging that but for Byrne’s negligence in preparing his estimate and testimony, Bruce and Smallwood would have obtained a judgment for the actual cost of the stabilization. The trial court dismissed the complaint because witnesses are immune from suit. The Washington Court of Appeals reversed. Byrne-Stevens and Byrne appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Dore, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.