Weseloh

Weseloh Family Ltd. Partnership v. K.L. Wessel Construction Co.

Good Law
125 Cal. App. 4th 152·2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 2195·2004 Daily Journal DAR 15150·22 Cal. Rptr. 3d 660·2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 11242
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 21, 2004G032874California7,701 words

Opinion

Opinion

Fybel, J.

INTRODUCTION

Design engineers designed retaining walls for an automobile dealership project. They contracted with the builder of the walls. After a portion of the retaining walls failed and the project suffered damage, the property owner sued the design engineers for negligence. The general contractor sued the design engineers for negligence and equitable indemnity. The trial court granted motions for summary judgment on the ground the design engineers did not owe a duty of care to the property owner or the general contractor. We affirm.

We apply the burden-shifting standards of Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (p)(2), and conclude the design engineers met their initial burden of showing no duty of care existed. The burden then shifted to the property owner and the general contractor to produce evidence showing the existence of a duty or a triable issue of material fact relevant to determining whether a duty existed. The property owner and the general contractor failed to carry this burden, considering the factors set forth in Biakanja v. Irving (1958) 49 Cal.2d 647 [ 320 P.2d 16 ] (Biakanja) and Bily v. Arthur Young & Co. (1992) 3 Cal.4th 370 [ 11…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.