六人家庭的律师和2018年佛罗里达国际大学行人桥的幸存者的律师说，路易斯·伯杰集团是最后一名尚未同意在迈阿密州法院解决诉讼的被告。法律行动针对设计和建造桥梁的公司。
伯杰（Berger）在该项目上的工作提出了有关同行评审质量与此类评论所产生的责任之间关系的几个问题。根据6月份发布的美国职业安全与健康管理局的一份调查报告，Berger的同行评审仅包括最终设计，而不包括施工期间的中间阶段。在重要的最终连接完成之前，结构崩溃了。
OSHA声称，如果Berger检查了施工条件，这场悲剧可能已经避免了。
佛罗里达州的运输同行评审规则要求由一家单独的公司完成工作，并包括“可施加性”和“建筑量相吻合与交通管制的兼容性”。规则不包括“建筑的临时阶段”或“建筑负载”。但是，《州计划手册》中的语言似乎暗示了审查应该是广泛的。
Munilla建筑管理保险公司（MCM）（现在是Magnum建筑管理）于4月下旬登上了4200万美元，向和解基金捐款。据《迈阿密先驱报》报道，该项目的总部位于塔拉哈西的主要设计师Figg Bridge工程师也同意为该和解基金做出贡献，并有20多个分包商。
To date, Berger Group has declined to comment on its role or on OSHA’s report, which spread criticism among FIGG Bridge Engineers, MCM, inspection contractor Bolton, Perez and state transportation officials.
OSHA was especially pointed in its criticism of FIGG, the engineer-of-record on the project, which has declined to admit to errors or respond directly to the criticism that its design lacked redundancy and that the company failed to act when alarming cracks appeared on the structure. FIGG has indicated that it would await the completion of the National Transportation Safety Board’s investigation before commenting further.
OSHA’s report stated that Berger declined to turn over its emails with FIGG Bridge Engineers.
斯图尔特·格罗斯曼（Stuart Grossman）是一名代表理查德·舒·布斯（Richard Humble）的律师，他是桥下的SUV乘客，当它倒塌时受伤，他说，没有对异常结构进行更完整的同行评审的原因尚不清楚。他说：“如果他们觉得需要进一步检查，他们当然永远不会说话。”“结果，它给每个人都带来了错误的安全感。”
Whether Berger should have known what was stated in the OSHA report, that Florida state rules require peer review of all phases of the project, isn’t clear. Nevertheless, OSHA investigators wrote, “If Louis Berger had checked the design at Stage 3, it could have discovered structural deficiencies in the design and this incident could have been prevented.” Both Berger and FIGG failed to comply with the intent and meaning of FDOT’s rules, the agency’s report added.
Unlike physicians, who enjoy legal immunity for most peer reviews under state laws, U.S. engineers have no similar privilege, except in Missouri and Kansas. The National Society of Professional Engineers has supported immunity, and in a position statement adopted in 2017 said that both pre-and post-project reviews should include language “shielding reviews from being used as lawsuit evidence, and provide that anyone who attempts to inappropriately acquire” the protected information will be responsible for the peer reviewer’s legal fees.
律师肯尼斯·E·鲁宾斯坦（Kenneth E. Rubinstein）说，没有免疫力，工程师在描述他们将在审查中所做的工作保持谨慎是明智的。“您可以说负载计算似乎都是准确的，但您也可以说您尚未检查基础基础，并假设它会倒入适当的深度。标准是要召集出来，直接说基础工作从未得到验证。”
鲁宾斯坦说，在诉讼中，以借口为借口，所有建筑阶段从未得到证实，这是一个薄弱的辩护，他是波士顿和北卡罗来纳州康科德市的董事，弗莱厄蒂，弗莱厄蒂的办公室。他补充说：“说这笔费用很小（正如伯杰集团的同行评审工程师告诉OSHA的那样，这笔费用很小。”
The Berger structural engineer who conducted the peer review told OSHA investigators that four months after the completion of the peer review, he was no longer working at the company for reasons unrelated to the project.
By Richard Korman with Scott Judy
