Construction equipment is seen near the partially-demolished Washington Bridge on Oct. 11, 2024. (Photo by Christopher Shea/Rhode Island Current)
The state of Rhode Island’s lawsuit against 13 companies accused of doing negligent work on westbound Washington Bridge finally reached the courtroom Tuesday morning — where defense attorneys are pushing for a swift dismissal.
Superior Court Judge Brian Stern’s ruling on whether to dismiss the case will not come until February, Jonathan Bissonnette, a spokesperson for the Rhode Island Judiciary, told Rhode Island Current in an email Tuesday.
Roger Williams University School of Law Professor Michael Yelnosky said he wasn’t surprised to see Stern take his time to weigh his decision.
“Even though we think a lot of time has passed, this is the earliest point you can get a case dismissed,” Yelnosky said in an interview Wednesday. “If he decides these in February that would be a pretty brisk pace — there are certainly motions to dismiss that languish much longer.”
The westbound Washington bridge has been closed since December 2023 after contracted engineers discovered broken anchor rods that put the highway at risk of collapse. At the time of its closure, that section of Interstate195 carried roughly 96,000 vehicles each day over the Seekonk River,
Gov. Dan McKee last April hired an outside legal team to pursue litigation against contractors that may have been responsible for the bridge’s failure. The lawsuit was filed Aug. 16 by Attorney General Peter Neronha and alleges a sweeping set of contract breaches and negligence on the part of contractors the state claimed for decades failed to detect or report structural problems.
In its complaint, the state brings claims of breach of contract, fiduciary duty, and negligence against the following:
- AECOM Technical Services Inc.
- Aetna Bridge Company; Aries Support Services Inc.
- Aries Support Services Inc.
- Barletta Heavy Division Inc.
- Barletta/Aetna I-195 Washington Bridge North Phase 2 JV
- Collins Engineers Inc.
- Commonwealth Engineers Consultants, Inc.
- Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.
- Michael Baker International Inc.
- Prime AE Group Inc.
- Steere Engineering Inc.
- Transystems Corporation
- Vanasse Hangen Brustlin (VHB) Inc.
Lawyers for the contractors began to make their case in the fall in filings to dismiss the suit, arguing the state’s case is strictly political and without legal basis, calling it “legally absurd” in one motion.
The AG’s office argues their complaint was indeed sufficiently pled.
“These problems did not occur overnight,” the state’s legal team wrote in its response filed Jan. 7. “They were ignored over the years by the numerous entities that purported to inspect the bridge to ensure it was in adequate condition and safe for use, and by the firms who purported to design plans for the effective and complete rehabilitation of the bridge.”
Contractors, including Barletta and Aetna, have also argued that the lawsuit is too vague in its allegations. But such a defense is unlikely to hold up, Yelnosky said.
“Complaints are just about putting people on notice as to why they’ve been sued,” Yelnosky said. “If the judge decides a complaint is sufficiently vague, the response to that is generally not dismissal, but an order to the plaintiff to be more specific.”
Where firms could see a potential dismissal, Yelnosky said, is under the “economic loss doctrine,” a theory that contractors can’t be found responsible for damages or negligence outside the terms of a contract.
Attorneys for Barletta and Aetna have leaned heavily on that argument, claiming the state contractually assumed the risk of any failed remediation efforts of the Washington Bridge.
“It’s often easier to make these kinds of decisions when you have a full understanding of what exactly the claim is,” Yelnosky said. “This is what happens in lawsuits, you typically don’t know everything the moment that you file them.”
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.