The sun., 1919-09-07
OWNERS HOLD WHIP
OYER ARCHITECTS
Courts Decide Designers Must
Show "Reasonable" Skill
in Their Work.

Tho usual building relation rs three
Oornered affair between the owner, con-
tractor and architect The interests OF
each of these three individuals are SO
closely woven together that they must
AFFECT In no small manner the interests
OF the other parties. says the American
Contractor in It's current issue. Hence
n discussion Of the liability of the archi-
tect to the owner, for instance, Is not
only of interest but OF value to contrac-
tore as WELL because II Is seldom In
deed that the contractors interests do
not enter into the question at some point
or other.
The architect is O professional man
depending upon his skill and talent as
means of livelihood. In this respect no
is not unlike the doctor. lawyer or other
professional man engaged in highly
specialized work.
II Is a general rule of law that the
architect must employ reasonable skill
and taste in his work The term 'rea-
sonable" of course being rather vague,
but It is presumed to mean reasonable
among his profession.
In a Nebraska case X was held that,
as between the architect and the owner.
no doubt the architect would be liable
for any mistake in the plans and speci-
fications which increased the cost, OF the
building.
other state Decisions.
In New York it was held that the
orchitect cannot recover anything where
defects and omissions run through the
entire system of his plans. so that they
are useless to contractors and builders.
In a Pennsylvania case the referee
took as a basis of ascertaining the value
of the services of an architect, their
value IL they had been skilfully prepared
and complete, and deducted from the
amount what 1t would cost to complete
the plans and remedy the defects This
decision was reversed on appeal, the
court saying:
"If the plans had simply been In
complete, requiring only the services
Of an ordinary draughtsman to perfect
the details, the basis adopted by the
referee would not have been subject to
Just criticism. When an architect un-
dertakes to prepare the plans for large
and expensive structure, he covenants
not only that he is possessed Of the
requisite skill, but that that skill shall
be exercised in the work which he has
undertaken.
"If the product of his labor Is a plan
vitality defective, his employer might go
on and erect a building enormously ex-
pensive which, from its foundation up,
would be insecure
at is manifest that the value of a
plan skilfully drawn furnishes no stand
ard by which to ascertain the value of
n plan containing such radical defects.
A plan which. If carried into execution.
would produce a building not self-sup-
porting, can hardly be said to come UP
to what Is expected of an architect.
''If the plan in question exhibited the
skill which the nature of the employ
rnent demanded it's value was to be esti-
sAd afv,nw 1A
fective as not to meet the requirements
of the purpose for which 1t was in
tended, It might be utterly worthless. II
the plaintiff was entitled to recover,
the value Of his services is to be de-
termned by what he himself did. and
not what some more careful man might
have done"
Duty to Keep Informed.
In New York case the. court said
ut is as necessary that the architec.
should know what is needed to mak'-
steam heating apparatus serviceable as
Il is that he should know how sewer
gas is to be kept out of the house. No
cne would contend that at this day ar
architect could shelter himself behind
the plumber, and excuse his ignorance
of the ordinary appliances for sanitary
ventilation by saying that he was not
expert in the trade of plumbing.
HE is an expert in carpentry, in ce-
ments. in mortar, in the strength of
The materials. in the art OF constructing
the walls, the floors, the staircases, the
roofs and is in duty bound to possess
reasonable skill and knowledge as to all
these things; and when in the progress
of civilization, new conyeniences are In
troduced into our homes, and become.
not curious novelties. but the custom
airy 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 expected of him with respect ro
the other and older branches of his pro-
fessional studiesT
1t must be kept in mind. howev ar
that the duty Of the architect. with
reference to a certain engagement, is
limited by the contract which he has
entered into with the owner. The law
cannot impose a liability, even as to
skill and knowledge. which is not con-
templated by the contract And whsre
certain specifications are set out in the
contract, tending TO point out the meas.
ure OF the architects duty. II will be
construed by the courts to mean a rea-
sonable skill In the particulars men
toned and nothing greater.
Publicity Is No violation.
II Is further a general rule of Law
that an architect is not duty bound tC
keep secret the plans for a given build
ing unless he has specifically contracted
TO do so. But where an architect is en-
gagged to prepare plans for n giveT
building and he, as Is generally Gus.
tonary. gives out the fact to the news
papers, he has violated no duty at Law
which will render him liable in an ac.
ton OF damages, even though the dis
closure OF the secret may be decidedly
injurious to his employer.
1t Is also true that the architect can
no. be held responsible In an action fol
damages for injuries or losses sustained
which are the result of the owners owl
fault.
For instance, in a given case the city
ordnance prohibited buildings placed
nearer the street line than a certain dis
tsnce. The architect informed tht
owner of this provision in the ordi
EAnceA The owner however, wanted
decided to have II built with windowl
which projected over. nearer the stree
than allowed by the ordinance.
The city promptly sued the owner fo
damages and also obtained an inJunc
tion against him, making him tear ou
the windows and build them in accord
Ance with the statute
The owner then attempted to reooVe
damages from the architect, but tn
court disallowed the claim, saying tha
the architect could never be held respon
sible for the losses sustained by tn