{"id":862,"date":"2012-10-05T13:49:41","date_gmt":"2012-10-05T19:49:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?p=862"},"modified":"2012-10-05T13:49:41","modified_gmt":"2012-10-05T19:49:41","slug":"the-resurrection-of-the-completed-and-accepted-work-doctrine","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/the-resurrection-of-the-completed-and-accepted-work-doctrine\/","title":{"rendered":"The Resurrection of the \u201cCompleted and Accepted Work Doctrine\u201d"},"content":{"rendered":"

John L. Shaw – September 10, 2012<\/p>\n

In the recent Court of Appeals decision, Lamb vs. Duggins Welding, (No. COA12-129, August 7, 2012) the Court relied on a 1946 case (Price vs. Johnston Cotton Co. of Wendell, Inc. 266 N.C. 758) to\u00a0 support the application of the \u201cCompleted and Accepted Work Doctrine\u201d and bar an action for personal injuries by a construction worker.<\/p>\n

The plaintiff, Jason Lamb, was the site superintendent for Lomax Construction, the General Contractor (GC) on a multi-story building project. The GC hired defendant Duggins Welding to install steel decking which in turn hired the defendant Mabe Steel to work on the steel.\u00a0 In order to comply with OSHA regulations, Duggins requested Mabe to install a perimeter safety cable on the third floor. Mabe accomplished this work by threading the cable through holes in the columns and where there were no holes, threaded the cable through nuts welded onto the columns. Mabe terminated the end of the cable by wrapping it around a column and secured it with clamps and turnbuckles.<\/p>\n

After Mabe left the site, the column to which the cable was attached was removed.\u00a0 At the direction of the plaintiff, Lomax moved the cable to an adjacent column. Instead of wrapping the cable around the column and securing it, as Mabe had done, Lomax\u2019s employees terminated the safety cable by attachment to a nut that Mabe had previously welded to the column.<\/p>\n

One of Jason Lamb\u2019s daily duties was to inspect the cable and while testing its deflection, the weld to the nut broke off, the plaintiff fell three stories and received serious injuries. Lamb sued Duggins and Mabe to recover damages due to his injuries.\u00a0 The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the defendants and Lamb appealed.<\/p>\n

The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment based on the \u201ccompleted and accepted work\u201d doctrine. The court, quoting Price stated the \u201ccompleted and accepted work doctrine provides \u2018that an independent contractor is not liable for injuries to third parties occurring after the contractor has completed the work and it has been accepted by the owner\u2026a fortiori, an independent contractor is not liable where the injury is not due to the condition in which he left the work\u201d.<\/p>\n

The court noted the doctrine is rarely applied in North Carolina and is limited to construction and repair contracts.\u00a0 The court also noted that the doctrine has previously been held not applicable to service contracts. Nevertheless, the court holds the doctrine applicable to this case because it involved a construction contract.<\/p>\n

On an issue of first impression, the court further held that the plaintiff, although employed by the General Contractor, was a \u201cthird party\u201d within the meaning of the doctrine. In support, the court relies on Fishback and Moore, Inc. v. Foxwworth, 246 Miss. 814, 152 So.2d 714 (1963).<\/p>\n

The court recognized an exception to the doctrine if a contactor turns over work so negligently defective as to be imminently dangerous to third persons, provided the contractor knows or should have known of the dangerous situation created by him and the other contractor does not know of the dangerous condition or defect and could not discover it by reasonable inspection. The court then held that the welded nut was not imminently dangerous as originally used to maintain the height of the cable and therefore the doctrine was applicable to this case.<\/p>\n

The resurrection of the Completed and Accepted Work doctrine and its application to claims involving construction contracts has several ramifications that may be the reason the doctrine was seldom used. First, a construction contract is a service contact to which,\u00a0 according to one case, the doctrine should not apply. Second, and perhaps the most important, is how does one determine if a contractor\u2019s or subcontractor\u2019s work has been \u201caccepted\u201d?\u00a0 Apparently, a latent defect will not be sufficient to benefit from the exception to the rule unless the entity furnishing the work knows its work is \u201cimminently dangerous\u201d to third persons and knows or should know of the dangerous condition. Therefore, mere negligently performed work causing injury would not take it outside the doctrine and allow a claim for personal injuries.<\/p>\n

Although the court does not discuss the terms of the parties contracts, will the standard provision stating that \u201cpayment for work does not constitute acceptance of the work\u201d be binding on \u201cthird parties.\u201d Exactly when is work accepted in order for the doctrine to apply?<\/p>\n

In the future, one would expect this case to be cited by defense counsel in connection with injuries during construction work and many arguments made as to whether the defective work was accepted and, if so, whether it was \u201cimminently dangerous.\u201d<\/p>\n

There is some indication the Completed and Accepted Work Doctrine is an extension of the lack of privity defense, but even the economic loss doctrine allows claims for personal injuries. In addition, it appears that if the traditional defenses of contributory negligence or lack of proximate cause had been applied, the case would have had the same result without the application of the doctrine and its uncertainties.<\/p>\n

via The resurrection of the \u201ccompleted and accepted work doctrine\u201d – Lexology<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

John L. Shaw – September 10, 2012 In the recent Court of Appeals decision, Lamb vs. Duggins Welding, (No. COA12-129, August 7, 2012) the Court relied on a 1946 case (Price vs. Johnston Cotton Co. of Wendell, Inc. 266 N.C. 758) to\u00a0 support the application of the \u201cCompleted and Accepted Work Doctrine\u201d and bar an… Continue reading The Resurrection of the \u201cCompleted and Accepted Work Doctrine\u201d<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[14,5],"tags":[12,150,5],"class_list":["post-862","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-construction-2","category-osha","tag-construction","tag-construction-injury","tag-osha","entry"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"yoast_head":"\nThe Resurrection of the \u201cCompleted and Accepted Work Doctrine\u201d - Advise & Consult, Inc.<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/the-resurrection-of-the-completed-and-accepted-work-doctrine\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Resurrection of the \u201cCompleted and Accepted Work Doctrine\u201d - Advise & Consult, Inc.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"John L. Shaw – September 10, 2012 In the recent Court of Appeals decision, Lamb vs. Duggins Welding, (No. COA12-129, August 7, 2012) the Court relied on a 1946 case (Price vs. Johnston Cotton Co. of Wendell, Inc. 266 N.C. 758) to\u00a0 support the application of the \u201cCompleted and Accepted Work Doctrine\u201d and bar an… Continue reading The Resurrection of the \u201cCompleted and Accepted Work Doctrine\u201d\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/the-resurrection-of-the-completed-and-accepted-work-doctrine\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Advise & Consult, Inc.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2012-10-05T19:49:41+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@adviseconsult\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@adviseconsult\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/the-resurrection-of-the-completed-and-accepted-work-doctrine\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/the-resurrection-of-the-completed-and-accepted-work-doctrine\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7\"},\"headline\":\"The Resurrection of the \u201cCompleted and Accepted Work Doctrine\u201d\",\"datePublished\":\"2012-10-05T19:49:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/the-resurrection-of-the-completed-and-accepted-work-doctrine\/\"},\"wordCount\":864,\"commentCount\":6,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"construction\",\"Construction Injury\",\"OSHA\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Construction\",\"OSHA\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/the-resurrection-of-the-completed-and-accepted-work-doctrine\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/the-resurrection-of-the-completed-and-accepted-work-doctrine\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/the-resurrection-of-the-completed-and-accepted-work-doctrine\/\",\"name\":\"The Resurrection of the \u201cCompleted and Accepted Work Doctrine\u201d - Advise & Consult, Inc.\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2012-10-05T19:49:41+00:00\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/the-resurrection-of-the-completed-and-accepted-work-doctrine\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"Advise & Consult, Inc.\",\"description\":\"Construction Expert Witnesses\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Advise & Consult\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/AC-Red-Logo.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/AC-Red-Logo.png\",\"width\":162,\"height\":75,\"caption\":\"Advise & Consult\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/adviseconsult\",\"https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company-beta\/204526\/\",\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/user\/MrConstructionExpert\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7\",\"name\":\"admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b01e71b7acadd7657af782b7ad1a30cc?s=96&d=mm&r=pg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b01e71b7acadd7657af782b7ad1a30cc?s=96&d=mm&r=pg\",\"caption\":\"admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\/\/www.expertwitnessinconstruction.com\"]}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Resurrection of the \u201cCompleted and Accepted Work Doctrine\u201d - Advise & Consult, Inc.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/the-resurrection-of-the-completed-and-accepted-work-doctrine\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Resurrection of the \u201cCompleted and Accepted Work Doctrine\u201d - Advise & Consult, Inc.","og_description":"John L. Shaw – September 10, 2012 In the recent Court of Appeals decision, Lamb vs. Duggins Welding, (No. COA12-129, August 7, 2012) the Court relied on a 1946 case (Price vs. Johnston Cotton Co. of Wendell, Inc. 266 N.C. 758) to\u00a0 support the application of the \u201cCompleted and Accepted Work Doctrine\u201d and bar an… Continue reading The Resurrection of the \u201cCompleted and Accepted Work Doctrine\u201d","og_url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/the-resurrection-of-the-completed-and-accepted-work-doctrine\/","og_site_name":"Advise & Consult, Inc.","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/","article_published_time":"2012-10-05T19:49:41+00:00","author":"admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@adviseconsult","twitter_site":"@adviseconsult","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/the-resurrection-of-the-completed-and-accepted-work-doctrine\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/the-resurrection-of-the-completed-and-accepted-work-doctrine\/"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7"},"headline":"The Resurrection of the \u201cCompleted and Accepted Work Doctrine\u201d","datePublished":"2012-10-05T19:49:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/the-resurrection-of-the-completed-and-accepted-work-doctrine\/"},"wordCount":864,"commentCount":6,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization"},"keywords":["construction","Construction Injury","OSHA"],"articleSection":["Construction","OSHA"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/the-resurrection-of-the-completed-and-accepted-work-doctrine\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/the-resurrection-of-the-completed-and-accepted-work-doctrine\/","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/the-resurrection-of-the-completed-and-accepted-work-doctrine\/","name":"The Resurrection of the \u201cCompleted and Accepted Work Doctrine\u201d - Advise & Consult, Inc.","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2012-10-05T19:49:41+00:00","inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/the-resurrection-of-the-completed-and-accepted-work-doctrine\/"]}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/","name":"Advise & Consult, Inc.","description":"Construction Expert Witnesses","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization","name":"Advise & Consult","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/AC-Red-Logo.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/AC-Red-Logo.png","width":162,"height":75,"caption":"Advise & Consult"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/","https:\/\/x.com\/adviseconsult","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company-beta\/204526\/","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/user\/MrConstructionExpert"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7","name":"admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b01e71b7acadd7657af782b7ad1a30cc?s=96&d=mm&r=pg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b01e71b7acadd7657af782b7ad1a30cc?s=96&d=mm&r=pg","caption":"admin"},"sameAs":["http:\/\/www.expertwitnessinconstruction.com"]}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p2ztG6-dU","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/862","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=862"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/862\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=862"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=862"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=862"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}