Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1889-01-28
An IMPORTANT DECISION.
\ Kew York Judge on Architects and
Their Responsibilities.

The case Of Hubert o. Aitkin, recently de.
fided in the court of common pleas of New
York city, gave Judge Van Hoesen occasion tc
define the relation of an architect 10 his ellen,
and its Incidental responsibilities.
The question In the particular case was as To
whether this architect was liable in damages
Tor the insufficient size Of a chimney for steam
N an apartment house, he having relied upon
the judgment in that respect of the steam
heating contractor, which proved at fault.
The action was brought by the plaintiff,
Philip G. Hubert, an architect, against John
w. Aiken for the value of his services, and the
defense was that the area of the fiue provided
In the chimney was inadequate for the service
Of the boiler, so that the proper consumption
Of the coal could not be secured; and that on
account Of this deficiency in the chimney flue
the defendant will be obliged to build a new
chimney fue on the outside Of the building,
and that the necessary cost and expense thereof
will be 81 900. In commenting on the case the
Judge said:
1.-THE plaintiffs are architects Of standing.
who assume to be able to plan and superintend
the construction of frst-class apartment houses,
to be heated by steam and to be provided with
every convenience demanded by the luxurious
tastes of the day. They are not architects in a
rural community, OUT IN the nrst city OF amer
lea. Steam heating is, as We all know, COM
mon, if not a necessity, in all apartment houses
Of large size and Of high class. II il true
that houses Of this description are Of recent
Introduction. but they are now q very i'm
portant part of our system Of economics, for in
some Of the new streets they are more numer-
ous than private residences or tenements Of
the kind that was formerly in vogue. The
architect who undertakes to construct house
that is to be heated by steam is cropping in the
dark unless he knows how large a chimney is
required. IL Is as necessary that the architect
should know what ia needed to make the steam
heating apparatus serviceable az il is that he
should know how sewer-gas Is to be kept out
of the house. No one would contend that at
this day an architect could shelter himself
behind the plumber, and excuse his ignorance
of the ordinary appliances for sanitary venti-
lation by saying that he was not an expert in
the trade Of plumbing. He is an expert In
carpentry, in dement's, in mortar, in the
strength Of materials in the art of construct
ing the walls, the floors, the staircases, the
roofs, and IL in duty bound to possess reason
able skill and knowledge as to all these things;
and when, in the progress Of civilization, new
conveniences are introduced into our homes.
and become, not curious novelties, but the
customary means of securing the comfort of
the unpretentious citizen, why should not the
architect be expected to possess the technical
learning respecting them that is exacted of
him with respect to other and older branches
of his professional studies? II Il not asking too
much Of the man who assumes that he is COM
petent to build house at cost Of more than
S10O, 900, and to arrange that it shall be heated
by steam. to insist that he shall know how to
proportion his chimney to the boiler. 1t is not
enough for him to say, Il asked the
steam-itter,' and then throw the con-
sequences of any error that may be made upon
the employer who engages him. relying upon
his skill. Responsibility cannot be shifted in
that way. In the of Moneypenny vs.
Hartland it was held that if surveyor be en-
pioyed to erect a bridge and form the ap-
proaches to ii. he is bound to ascertain for
himself, by experiments, the nature of the soil,
even although a person previously employed
for that purpose by his employer has made
such experiments, and has given him the re-
suit at his employers request; and if the sur
yeyor makes a low estimate, and thereby in
duces persons to subscribe for the execution of
the work who would otherwise have declined
1t, and 1t turns out that, owing to his negli-
gence and want of skill, such estimate is gross
ly incorrect, and that the work can be done,
but at much greater expense, he is not en-
titled to recover FOR his services"
The court. at general term, decided that this
sum of $1,000, necessary for the construction
OF a new chimney fiue. must be deducted from
the claim of the plaintiff for his services.