Opinion ID: 1936726
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Defendant CFZ

Text: Plaintiff claims that CFZ was negligent in the performance of its obligation to exercise reasonable skill and care in the design and selection of materials for the construction of the roof and that CFZ was negligent in its failure to supervise the construction project. CFZ moved for a directed verdict on these claims, raising four grounds, two of which are relevant here: first, that there was no evidence of negligence attributable to CFZ, and second, that there was no evidence of negligence attributable to CFZ which was the proximate cause of South Burlington's injury. [3] With respect to the negligent design claim, in order to establish a prima facie case for relief South Burlington had to show that CFZ breached its duty to use reasonable care and that as a proximate result of this breach the plaintiff suffered injury. Involved here is the question of the standard of care owed by a roof designer in the performance of its obligation to design and select materials for the construction of a school building roof in 1969. While it is true, as plaintiff argues, that the defendant must exercise reasonable skill and care, the record is devoid of evidence as to what the reasonable roof designer would have done in a similar situation. In particular, South Burlington's argument that CFZ should have made an independent inquiry into the feasibility of using the Zonolite Dyzone system and should not have relied on the representations made by the manufacturer does not satisfy its burden of showing a failure to exercise due care. There is no evidence in the record that the Zonolite system was of inferior quality or that it was poorly suited for Vermont conditions. Without being apprised of the standard to which CFZ would be held accountable a jury could not properly determine whether CFZ had failed to use the requisite care. It is the function of the jury as the trier of fact to draw the logical inferences from the evidence in light of their experience and knowledge. Where, however, the jury is incompetent to draw those inferences because they are distinctively related to a profession beyond the understanding of the average layman, it is necessary to introduce expert testimony. See Largess v. Tatem, 130 Vt. 271, 278-79, 291 A.2d 398, 403 (1972). In the present case, the standard of care required of a roof designer in 1969 was beyond the ken of the jury. To establish its case plaintiff needed to introduce evidence of the yardstick against which CFZ's conduct was to be measured. Since South Burlington failed to do so the trial court was not in error in directing the verdict as to this claim. [4] With regard to South Burlington's negligent supervision claim, the duty owed by CFZ to the plaintiff was set out in their contract. See Lapoint v. Dumont Construction Co., 128 Vt. 8, 10, 258 A.2d 570, 571 (1969). Their agreement provided as follows: The Architect shall make periodic visits to the site to familiarize himself generally with the progress and quality of the Work and to determine in general if the Work is proceeding in accordance with the Contract Documents. On the basis of his on-site observations as an Architect, he shall endeavor to guard the Owner against defects and deficiencies in the Work of the Contractor. The Architect shall not be required to make exhaustive or continuous on-site inspections to check the quality or quantity of the Work. The Architect shall not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in connection with the Work, and he shall not be responsible for the Contractor's failure to carry out the Work in accordance with the Contract Documents. In other sections, the contract provided that CFZ would not be responsible for the acts or omissions of the contractor or subcontractors, and that the contractor alone was responsible for supervision, direction and coordination of the construction. To hold CFZ liable for breach of contract, South Burlington not only had to establish the existence of an enforceable contract but also had to show that CFZ failed to perform according to their agreement. Lapoint, supra, 128 Vt. at 10, 258 A.2d at 571. Viewing the contract in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, it is difficult to see how CFZ failed to perform its contractual obligations. The language of the contract is clear and unambiguous, and this Court's duty is to apply it, not remake it or ignore it. Simpson v. State Mutual Life Assurance Co., 135 Vt. 554, 556, 382 A.2d 198, 199 (1977). CFZ's duty under the contract in no way related to supervision of the construction project or the duties of the contractor or subcontractors. Indeed, the agreement between South Burlington and the contractor imposed the duty solely on the latter to supervise and direct the job. That the parties understood this division of responsibility is further evidenced by the fact that Kenclif, the contractor, hired a special superintendent to supervise the job. South Burlington's claim to the effect that CFZ had a duty of care other than that specified in their agreement based on custom or usage in the industry cannot be determined on the record before us because plaintiff introduced no competent evidence that a reasonable roof designer would have done anything different. Without testimony by witnesses who could speak authoritatively as to the customs and usages of the roof designing and construction industry, the jury had no benchmark against which to measure CFZ's conduct. South Burlington's claim that the jury was competent to determine whether CFZ failed to meet the standard of care of a professional roof designer misperceives the relationship between the jury and expert witnesses. A jury is competent to draw logical inferences from facts within their knowledge. But where, as here, the facts ( i. e., the customs of a profession) are outside their knowledge, competent evidence, usually in the form of expert testimony, must be adduced. For the above-stated reasons the direction of the verdict in favor of CFZ was proper.