2012•Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and ConstructionRequires access

Negligent Tort Liability of the Design Professional

Christopher P. Caine, H. Randolph Thomas

Open publisher page 10 citations

Abstract

Design professionals such as architects and engineers (A/Es) are experiencing increased liability exposure from contractors seeking to recover construction-related damages. Legal action is usually sought based on the principles of tort law, but this area of the law may not be well understood by nonattorneys. As a result, contractors may spend precious financial resources pursuing a claim in which there is little chance of recovery. The purpose of this paper is to present in general terms the main elements of tort liability, specifically negligence. The issues described include the economic loss rule and the implications thereof. Several exceptions to the economic loss rule are described, most notably foreseeability. If a contractor can successfully navigate around the economic loss rule, the contractor must prove that the A/E owed the contractor a legal duty and that duty was breached because of A/E negligence. A/Es must follow the process that other similarly situated A/Es would have followed. Compounding a discussion of torts is the fact that the law is constantly changing and judicial attitudes vary between states (jurisdictions). On the surface, there seems to be little commonality about how A/E–contractor disputes are viewed between states except for the basics. However, one thing that does seem consistent is that a contractor seeking to recover purely economic damages from an A/E faces a formidable challenge. The paper concludes with a synopsis of several of court decisions where there were personal injuries or contractors sought recovery from an A/E for purely economic damages. All involve tort negligence. The common thread among the cases is a discussion of the foreseeability exception to the economic loss rule and the need to establish that a duty was owed in order to prevail in tort.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Design professionals such as architects and engineers (A/Es) are experiencing increased liability exposure from contractors seeking to recover construction-related damages. Legal action is usually sought based on the principles of tort law, but this area of the law may not be well understood by nonattorneys. As a result, contractors may spend precious financial resources pursuing a claim in which there is little chance of recovery. The purpose of this paper is to present in general terms the main elements of tort liability, specifically negligence. The issues described include the economic loss rule and the implications thereof. Several exceptions to the economic loss rule are described, most notably foreseeability. If a contractor can successfully navigate around the economic loss rule, the contractor must prove that the A/E owed the contractor a legal duty and that duty was breached because of A/E negligence. A/Es must follow the process that other similarly situated A/Es would have followed. Compounding a discussion of torts is the fact that the law is constantly changing and judicial attitudes vary between states (jurisdictions). On the surface, there seems to be little commonality about how A/E–contractor disputes are viewed between states except for the basics. However, one thing that does seem consistent is that a contractor seeking to recover purely economic damages from an A/E faces a formidable challenge. The paper concludes with a synopsis of several of court decisions where there were personal injuries or contractors sought recovery from an A/E for purely economic damages. All involve tort negligence. The common thread among the cases is a discussion of the foreseeability exception to the economic loss rule and the need to establish that a duty was owed in order to prevail in tort.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 10 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Design professionals such as architects and engineers (A/Es) are experiencing increased liability exposure from contractors seeking to recover construction-related damages. Legal action is usually sought based on the principles of tort law, but this area of the law may not be well understood by nonattorneys. As a result, contractors may spend precious financial resources pursuing a claim in which there is little chance of recovery. The purpose of this paper is to present in general terms the main elements of tort liability, specifically negligence. The issues described include the economic loss rule and the implications thereof. Several exceptions to the economic loss rule are described, most notably foreseeability. If a contractor can successfully navigate around the economic loss rule, the contractor must prove that the A/E owed the contractor a legal duty and that duty was breached because of A/E negligence. A/Es must follow the process that other similarly situated A/Es would have followed. Compounding a discussion of torts is the fact that the law is constantly changing and judicial attitudes vary between states (jurisdictions). On the surface, there seems to be little commonality about how A/E–contractor disputes are viewed between states except for the basics. However, one thing that does seem consistent is that a contractor seeking to recover purely economic damages from an A/E faces a formidable challenge. The paper concludes with a synopsis of several of court decisions where there were personal injuries or contractors sought recovery from an A/E for purely economic damages. All involve tort negligence. The common thread among the cases is a discussion of the foreseeability exception to the economic loss rule and the need to establish that a duty was owed in order to prevail in tort.

Key concepts: Tort, Liability, Business, Strict liability, Law, Law and economics, Actuarial science, Finance

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Negligent Tort Liability of the Design Professional — Research Paper | ScholarLens