Contractor
Shielded
from Liability
A
business hired architects for a renovation project involving a parking
lot, a retaining wall, and a loading dock. The plans, as drawn up by
the
architects, did not call for a guardrail along the top of the retaining
wall. A
construction firm completed the project according to the architects’
plans. The
contractor had not broken ground until a building permit was in hand,
and when
the work was done a building inspector gave it his blessing with a
certificate
of occupancy.
When a pedestrian fell from
the retaining wall
and injured his knee, he
sued the contractor for negligently failing to put up a guardrail. The
issue
for the court was whether the contractor could defend against liability
on the
ground that it was “just following orders (or plans, in this case).” A
state
supreme court sided with the contractor. The court reasoned that
builders and
contractors are justified in counting on the experience and skill of
architects
and engineers. To subject contractors to liability under the
circumstances of
this case would be to unfairly require contractors to follow
architectural
plans at their own risk and, in effect, to ensure the correctness of
specifications given to them, not just their own workmanship.
Of course, there are
limits on the
extent to which contractors can use
the plans as a shield from liability. If the results called for by the
plans
are so obviously dangerous that no competent contractor would follow
them, the
contractor can be held liable for building according to those defective
plans.
The individual who fell off of the retaining wall made this argument,
but the
court concluded that there was not enough evidence that the wall, even
though
it had no guardrail, was obviously dangerous.
|
