What is the IRAC for this case?

Chapter 1 Introduction to Law 11 By way of example, the following edited case of Cald- this text have their facts and decision summarized for the well v. Bechtel, Inc. is presented and then briefed using Lle- reader's convenience. The edited portion of the case begins wellyn's suggested format. (Note: The cases in the rest of with the judge's name.) CALDWELL V. BECHTEL, INC. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, 1980 631 F.20 989 OPINION Mackinnon, J. We are here concerned with a It is important to keep these differences between con- claim for damages by a worker who allegedly contracted sili- tract and tort duties in mind when examining whether cosis while he was mucking in a tunnel under construction as Bechtel's undertaking of contractual duties to WMATA part of the metropolitan subway system (Washington Metro- created a duty of reasonable care toward Caldwell. Dean politan Area Transit Authority [WMATA]). The basic issue Prosser expressed the relationship in this terse fashion. is whether a consultant engineering firm owed the worker a duty to protect him against unreasonable risk of harm. [Bly entering into a contract with A, the defendant may place himself in such a relation toward B that the law will impose upon him an obligation, sounding in tort and not in In attempting to convince the court that it owes no duty contract, to act in such a way that B will not be injured. of reasonable care to protect appellant's safety, Bechtel The incidental fact of the existence of the contract with A argues that by its contract with WMATA it assumed duties does not negative the responsibility of the actor when he only to WMATA. Appellant has not brought action, how- enters upon a course of affirmative conduct which may be ever, for breach of contract but rather seeks damages for expected to affect the interests of another person. an asserted breach of the duty of reasonable care. Unlike contractual duties, which are imposed by agreement of the Analyzing the common law, Prosser noted that courts parties to a contract, a duty of due care under tort law is have found a duty to act for the protection of another based primarily upon social policy. The law imposes upon when certain relationships exist, such as carrier-passenger, individuals certain expectations of conduct, such as the ex- innkeeper-guest, shipper-seaman, employer-employee, pectancy that their actions will not cause foreseeable injury shopkeeper-visitor, host-social guest, jailer-prisoner, and to another. These societal expectations, as formed through school-pupil. These holdings suggest that courts have been the common law, comprise the concept of duty. eroding the general rule that there is no duty to act to help Society's expectations, and the concomitant duties another in distress, by creating exceptions based upon a imposed, vary in response to the activity engaged in by the relationship between the actors. defendant. If defendant is driving a car, he will be held to exercise the degree of care normally exercised by a reasona- We find that case law provides many such analogous ble person in like circumstances. Or if defendant is engaged situations from which the principles deserving of applica- in the practice of his profession, he will be held to exercise a tion to this case may be culled. The foregoing concepts of degree of care consistent with his superior knowledge and duty converge in this case, as the facts include both the skill. Hence, when defendant Bechtel engaged in consulting WMATA-Bechtel contractual relationship from which it engineering services, the company was required to observe a was foreseeable that a negligent undertaking by Bechtel standard of care ordinarily adhered to by one providing might injure the appellant, and a special relationship estab- such services, possessing such skill and expertise. ished between Bechtel and the appellant because of Bech- A secondary but equally important principle involved in el's superior skills, knowledge of the dangerous condition, a determination of duty is to whom the duty is owed. The and ability to protect appellant. answer to this question is usually framed in terms of the We reverse the summary judgment of the district court, foreseeable plaintiff, in other words, one who might fore- and hold that as a matter of law, on the record as we are seeably be injured by defendant's conduct. This secondary required to view it at this time, Bechtel owed Caldwell a principle also serves to distinguish tort law from contract duty of due care to take reasonable steps to protect him law. While in contract law, only one to whom the contract specifies that a duty be rendered will have a cause of action from the foreseeable risk of harm to his health posed by the for it's breach, in tort law, society, not the contract, speci- excessive concentration of silica dust in the Metro tunnels. dies to whom the duty is owed, and this has traditionally We remand so that Caldwell will have an opportunity to been the foreseeable plaintiff. prove, if he can, the other elements of his negligence action.FACTS Caldwell was a laborer who now suffers from working in a tunnel under construction as part of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority {WMATA}. He brought his action for damages against _ Bechtel, Inc, a consultant engineering rm under contract- with WATA for the project. ISSUE Did Bechtel breach a duty of due care owed to Caldwell to take reasonable steps to protect him from the foreseeable risk of harm to his health posed by the exces sive concentration of silica dust in the subway tunnels? DECISION In favor of Caldwell. Summary judgment reversed and case remanded to the district court. REASONS Caldwell has not brought an action for breach of contract as Bechtel seems to believe. Rather, he Part1 introduction to Law and Ethics . seeks damages for an alleged breach of the duty of reason- able care. Unlike contractual duties, which are imposed by agreement of the parties to a contract, a duty of due care under tort law is based primarily on social policy. That is, the law imposes upon individuals the expectation 'that their actions will not cause foreseeable injury to another. These societal expectations comprise the concept of dutya concept that varies in response to the activity engaged in by the individual. Moreover, the duty is owed to anyone who might foreseeably be iniured by the con- duct of the actor in question. in contrast, under contract law, a- duty is owed only to those parties specied in the contract. Here, by entering into a contract with WMATA, Bechtel placed itself in such a relation toward Caldwell that the law will impose upon it an obligation in tort, and not in contract, to act in such a way that Caldwell would not be injured. / You can and should use this same legal analysis when learning the substantive concepts presented in this text and applying them to the endcfchapter questions and case problems. By way of example, in a number of chap ters throughout the text we have included a boxed feature called Applying the law, which provides a systematic legal analysis of a single concept learned in the chapter. This feature begins with the facts of a hypothetical case, fdl-_ lowed by an identication of the broad legal issue pre- sented by those facts. We then scare the ruleor - applicable legal principles, including denitions, which aid in resolving the legal issueand apply it to the facts. Finally we state a legal conclusion, or decision in the case. An example of this type of legal analysis follows. A F' l3 L Y I N [3 T H E i- x. \\-".-"