work site. Similarly, in Loyland v. Stone & Webster Engineering Corp., 9 Wn. App. 682, 514 P.2d 184 (1973), overruled on other grounds by Bayne v. Todd Shipyards Corp., 88 Wn.2d 917, 922,568 P.2d 771 (1977), injured workers brought suit against Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, which had contracted with a public utility district to design, supervise, and exe cute an extension to a hydroelectric power plant. Id. at 683. In assessing the design professional’s liability, the Court of Appeals held that liability hinged on “[t]he extent of supervision required of Stone & Webster in its contract with the district and the amount and character of inspection which it was to conduct.” Id. at 687; see also Porter v. Stevens, Thompson & Runyan, Inc., 24 Wn. App. 624, 602 P.2d 1192 (1979) (<HOLDING>). ¶48 In sum, at common law, third party design
holding that consulting engineer was not liable for workplace injury where it was not contractually responsible for safety precautions and did not exercise actual control of the work site holding that the department of transportation was liable under the mtca but that it was not responsible for any of the cleanup costs holding that the state was not liable as an operator for responding to a site to conduct cleanup activities holding that determination that work was performed as a consulting engineer did not affect underlying determination of negligence and so could be established through extrinsic evidence holding the defendant responsible for the greater of the actual or intended loss