Daniel Lund III | Phelps Dunbar
Seeking to be extracted from personal injury litigation initiated by a laborer on a project in New Orleans, an architect sued for negligence filed a motion for summary judgment.
The plaintiff had “testified in his deposition that after demolishing most of one of the side walls of the vault and a smaller section of the front wall, he was instructed to stand on top of the vault’s concrete ceiling in order to demolish it with a hydraulic jackhammer.” One court noted that: “Shortly after beginning that task, the entire vault structure collapsed.” Claims against the architect included assertions of “failure to monitor and supervise the execution of the plans to ensure safety at the jobsite.”
The architect urged in support of its MSJ that it did not owe a duty to oversee, supervise, or maintain the construction site, or have any responsibility for the plaintiff’s safety. Summary judgment was granted to the architect by the trial court, and an appeal ensued, whereupon the appellate court reversed. That intermediate court found that potential intervening knowledge of the architect of a potentially unsafe demolition practice created an issue of material fact.
The case was argued to the Louisiana Supreme Court, and the high court reversed the matter again, dismissing the architect and (per a footnote) “decline[d] to establish an extra-contractual duty owed” by the architect to the plaintiff.
This case is of interest not only because of its eventual outcome, but additionally when one takes into account – as did the Louisiana Supreme Court – the myriad provisions within the relevant contract which placed safety squarely on the shoulders of the contractor, including provisions declaring that:
- architect general contract administration did not equate to supervision of actual construction
- architect site visits were purely to familiarize the architect with the progress and quality of the work
- the architect was not responsible for construction means, methods, or safety precautions and programs
- the contractor was entirely responsible for the work, including all means and methods, and initiating, maintaining, and supervising all safety precautions and programs
- the contractor was responsible for erecting and maintaining all reasonable safeguards for safety and protection
- the contractor was to designate a responsible individual “whose duty shall be the prevention of accidents”
The fact that the intermediate appellate court ruled as it did notwithstanding the foregoing contractual provisions raises the question concerning the refusal of the Supreme Court to impose a tort-related duty: at what point might such a duty be imposed?
Bonilla v. Verges Rome Architects, 2023-00928 (La. 03/22/24); 2024 La. LEXIS 571
When one of your cases is in need of a construction expert, estimates, insurance appraisal or umpire services in defect or insurance disputes – please call Advise & Consult, Inc. at 888.684.8305, or email experts@adviseandconsult.net.