{"id":902513,"date":"2024-04-11T13:50:16","date_gmt":"2024-04-11T19:50:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?p=902513"},"modified":"2024-04-11T13:50:19","modified_gmt":"2024-04-11T19:50:19","slug":"personal-injury-you-just-design-them","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/personal-injury-you-just-design-them\/","title":{"rendered":"Construction\u00a0Litigation\u00a0Roundup: \u201cIndeed, You Just Design \u2018Em\u201d"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Daniel Lund III | Phelps Dunbar<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Seeking to be extracted from personal injury<\/a> litigation initiated by a laborer on a project in New Orleans, an architect sued for negligence filed a motion for summary judgment.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The plaintiff had \u201ctestified 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.\u201d One court noted that: \u201cShortly after beginning that task, the entire vault structure collapsed.\u201d Claims against the architect included assertions of \u201cfailure to monitor and supervise the execution of the plans to ensure safety at the jobsite.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

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\u2019s 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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The case was argued to the Louisiana Supreme Court, and the high court reversed the matter again, dismissing the architect and (per a footnote) \u201cdecline[d] to establish an extra-contractual duty owed\u201d by the architect to the plaintiff. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This case is of interest not only because of its eventual outcome, but additionally when one takes into account \u2013 as did the Louisiana Supreme Court \u2013 the myriad provisions within the relevant contract which placed safety squarely on the shoulders of the contractor, including provisions declaring that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n