Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.


October 4, 1968

FRANK M. DORSEY & SONS, INC., Plaintiff,
Bernard Lyon FRISHMAN, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, v. Arthur PREVILL, Third-Party Defendant

The opinion of the court was delivered by: HOLTZOFF

 The Court has before it a claim for damages against an engineer for negligence in the preparation of plans for an air conditioning system that, it is claimed, did not operate properly.

 The claim is asserted by a third-party complaint. The facts are as follows. A building at 1430 K Street, in the city of Washington, was being constructed under a contract with M. Cladney Construction Company as the principal contractor. The owners of the building were a group of individuals, one of whom was the defendant and third-party plaintiff, Bernard Frishman. He is an architect by profession and was also the architect of the building. Frishman hired Previll, the third-party defendant, an engineer who specialized in air conditioning apparatus, to prepare the plans for the air conditioning system. Previll was an employee of Frishman and worked in his office. In addition to doing Frishman's work he also carried on a business of his own.

 It is claimed that the plans prepared by Previll were inadequate, inoperative and defective, and that the air conditioning system installed was inadequate and did not fulfill what was required. The evidence shows that Frishman decided, either in his capacity as architect or in his capacity as part owner, that certain changes should be made in the air conditioning system, and assumed liability for the cost of making the alterations. He engaged the plaintiff, Frank M. Dorsey & Sons, Incorporated, to make the necessary changes.

 The plaintiff later brought suit to foreclose a mechanic's lien, and also to recover from the owners of the building of whom Frishman was one, the amount due it for the work ordered by Frishman. Frishman settled the case by paying the amount asserted to be due, namely, the sum of over $19,000. Consequently, the principal case has been disposed of. Frishman asserted a third-party claim against Previll for damages for negligence in preparing defective plans. This third-party claim is now before the Court for adjudication.

 It is not denied that Frishman retained Previll to prepare the plans for the air conditioning system, and that Previll did so. Those plans were modified and Previll approved the modifications. An air conditioning system was then installed. It departed from both the original and revised plans. There is a dispute, for example, whether it was necessary to subdivide the air conditioning apparatus on each floor into three zones, or whether a single zone was sufficient. The dispute appears to be more or less academic, because the plaintiff's expert witness, Herbert Arey, admitted that the shop drawings which the plaintiff has introduced in evidence, and which were later revised, did show three zones. Even a layman, by examining those plans, can observe the designations: zone 1, zone 2, zone 3. The system actually installed contained pumps that were located in the penthouse, whereas the specifications and the drawings called for them to be on the first floor.

 The evidence showed that the system actually installed did not operate properly and that certain changes were necessary, which Mr. Frishman ordered. There is not sufficient showing, however, that the original plans, which were not followed, or the revised plans, which also were not followed in detail, would not have been satisfactory. There is no evidence that the defects were not due to the departure from the plans. There is no showing that the third-party defendant was guilty of any negligence or lack of due care, or failure to comply with the prevailing standards in his profession.

 This brings us to the question what rule should be applied to the liability of an architect or an engineer to his principal. A professional man is not a guarantor of his work. For example, a physician is not liable for damages if he fails to cure his patient. A lawyer is not liable for damages if he fails to win his case. A professional man is under an obligation to use due care and also to comply with the standards prevailing in his area and followed by other members of the same profession in the same specialty. In other words, he is liable only for negligence.

 This principle has been frequently applied to physicians and surgeons. A succinct statement of this doctrine is found in an opinion of the Court of Appeals in Rodgers v. Lawson, 83 U.S.App.D.C. 281, at 282, 170 F.2d 157, 158, where Stephens, J. wrote:

"The principles of law governing malpractice actions are well settled. A physician 'must exercise that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised by the profession in his own or similar localities.' * * * The burden of proof is upon a plaintiff to establish by substantial evidence departure from that standard and that such departure caused the injury complained of."

 In Christie v. Callahan, 75 U.S. App. D.C. 133, 136, 124 F.2d 825, 828, the Court said:

"The physician is not an insurer of health. He undertakes only for the standard of skill possessed generally by others practicing in his field, and for the care which they would give in similar circumstances. He must have latitude for play of reasonable judgment, and this includes room for not too obvious or gross errors according to the prevailing practice of his craft."

 The latest expression of the Court of Appeals to the same effect is found in the recent case of Kosberg v. Washington Hospital Center, D.C.Cir., 129 U.S. App. D.C. 322, 394 F.2d 947.

 No reason is perceived why the same principle should not apply to members of other professions, such as engineers and architects. The Court is of the opinion that an engineer or architect should be held liable only for negligence, that is a lack of due care or failure to comply with the standards ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.