Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractplaintiffdefendantdamagesnegligencepunitive damagesduty of care

contractplaintiffdamagesnegligencetrialverdictmotionduty of care

Related Cases

Shepherd Components, Inc. v. Brice Petrides-Donohue & Associates, Inc., 473 N.W.2d 612

Facts

Plaintiff Shepherd Components commenced this action after a wall of its cinder block building collapsed during excavation work performed on adjacent property for a city sewer project. Defendant Brice Petrides—Donohue & Associates, Inc. (Brice), an engineering firm, prepared the plans and specifications for the project, while codefendant Peterson Contractors, Inc. (Peterson), was the contractor that performed the excavation work. The jury found Shepherd's damages and allocated fault, resulting in a judgment against Brice for thirty percent and against Peterson for seventy percent of the damages, along with punitive damages.

Plaintiff Shepherd Components commenced this action after a wall of its cinder block building collapsed during excavation work performed on adjacent property for a city sewer project.

Issue

Did the engineering firm owe a duty to protect the adjoining owner from damages caused by the construction procedures used by the excavation contractor?

The issue in this case is whether the trial court correctly determined that Brice, in its role as a construction reviewer, owed a duty to protect plaintiff from harm.

Rule

An engineer does not, by reason of its duty to inspect the construction site, assume responsibility for either the day-to-day construction methods utilized by the contractor or the contractor's negligence.

A general rule applicable to this case is that an engineer does not, by reason of its duty to inspect the construction site, assume responsibility for either the day-to-day construction methods utilized by the contractor or the contractor's negligence.

Analysis

The court concluded that Brice did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff because it had no control over the construction procedures employed by Peterson. The contracts indicated that Peterson was responsible for protecting adjacent properties, and Brice's role was limited to quality control of completed work, not supervision of construction methods. Therefore, the court found that Brice was not liable for the damages caused by Peterson's actions.

We conclude that Brice did not owe a duty of care to others and, consequently, cannot be responsible for Peterson's negligence.

Conclusion

The court reversed the judgment against Brice, holding that it did not owe a duty to protect the plaintiff from damages caused by the contractor. The court affirmed the award of actual damages against Peterson and the distribution of punitive damages.

We conclude that Brice owed plaintiff no duty of care. Consequently, we hold that the trial court erred by not sustaining Brice's motion for a directed verdict.

Who won?

Brice Petrides-Donohue & Associates, Inc. prevailed as the court found it did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff, thus reversing the judgment against it.

Brice did not owe a duty to protect plaintiff from damages caused by the construction procedures used by Peterson.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Hudson v. Lazarus, 217 F.2d 344, 95 U.S.App.D.C. 16

Burlington Group, Inc. v. Chardon Lakes Inn Restaurant, Inc., Not Reported in N.E.2d, 1995 WL 236919

Bonina v. Sheppard, 91 Mass.App.Ct. 622, 78 N.E.3d 128

Lasek v. Vermont Vapor, Inc., 196 Vt. 243, 95 A.3d 447, 2014 VT 33

Browning-Ferris Industries of Vermont, Inc. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc., 492 U.S. 257, 109 S.Ct. 2909, 106 L.Ed.2d 219, 57 USLW 4985, 1989-1 Trade Cases P 68,630