Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 340 Motion to Exclude Testimony and Report of Mr. Richard Humann; granting 454 Motion for Leave to File Supplement; and Scheduling Evidentiary Hearing on 349 Motion to Exclude Testimony. Signed by District Judge Judith E. Levy. (WBar)
Walters et al v. Flint et al, (click here) No. 5:2017cv10164 - Document 645 (E.D. Mich. 2022)
Court Description: OPINION and ORDER denying as moot 489 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 490 Motion in Limine; denying 492 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 511 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 513 Motion in Limine. Signed by District Judge Judith E. Levy. (WBar)
By Sidley Austin
On Monday, February 7, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (click here) denied in part a professional engineering company’s motion for summary judgment in Walters et al. v. Flint et al., part of the ongoing Flint water litigation. Plaintiffs in the litigation sought to hold the engineering company, which has served as a water engineer for the City of Flint since at least 2011 and had been involved in discussing and planning the city’s possible switch of water source, liable for professional negligence based on the company’s failure to warn the city of its plan’s shortcomings or otherwise recommend corrective measures.
Although the district court granted summary judgment for the engineering company on one of three theories of liability, it found sufficient facts existed to proceed to trial on two other theories—its negligent and incorrect advice to the city regarding its water treatment plant and (ii) its negligent failure to warn the city of the consequences of the city’s decision not to use orthophosphates after it also decided not to use appropriate corrosion controls. Although bellwether trials are set to begin this month and the factual record may cause the court to reach a different outcome, the case is an inherent warning to engineering companies to be aware of their professional duties in environmental matters.
On Monday, February 7, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (click here) denied in part a professional engineering company’s motion for summary judgment in Walters et al. v. Flint et al., part of the ongoing Flint water litigation. Plaintiffs in the litigation sought to hold the engineering company, which has served as a water engineer for the City of Flint since at least 2011 and had been involved in discussing and planning the city’s possible switch of water source, liable for professional negligence based on the company’s failure to warn the city of its plan’s shortcomings or otherwise recommend corrective measures.
Although the district court granted summary judgment for the engineering company on one of three theories of liability, it found sufficient facts existed to proceed to trial on two other theories—its negligent and incorrect advice to the city regarding its water treatment plant and (ii) its negligent failure to warn the city of the consequences of the city’s decision not to use orthophosphates after it also decided not to use appropriate corrosion controls. Although bellwether trials are set to begin this month and the factual record may cause the court to reach a different outcome, the case is an inherent warning to engineering companies to be aware of their professional duties in environmental matters.
Case No. 17-10164 (click here)
08-26-2020
IN RE FLINT WATER CASES. This Order Relates to: Walters v. Flint
...In this case, Flint residents are bringing a lawsuit against the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") under the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346, 2671 – 80, alleging that the EPA was negligent in its response to the Flint Water Crisis, which resulted in injuries to Plaintiffs. There are other Flint Water FTCA cases assigned to the Honorable Linda V. Parker and consolidated in Burgess v. United States, No. 17-cv-11218. Meeks v. United States, No. 19-cv-13359, however, was assigned to this Court, and because of the common issues of fact and the overlap between Plaintiffs in Meeks and in this Court's other Flint Water Cases, the Court consolidated it with Walters v. Flint, No. 17-cv-10164. (ECF No. 294.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint....
