Opinion ID: 1790126
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: did compliance with plans and customs of trade preclude recovery?

Text: There remains another hurdle to recovery, however. As we have noted, the jury had sufficient evidence to conclude that Gilmore as the contractor-builder would ordinarily be deemed negligent in having failed to warn the Yateses, and also having constructed the house with no allowance for yazoo clay. There is no dispute, however, but that Gilmore built the house in accordance with the plans and specifications therefor, and passed the VA inspections. Further, the strong weight of the evidence is that there was no custom or practice in the local building trade in Madison County in 1977 to make soil tests preparatory to constructing this type of dwelling. Do these facts insulate Gilmore from any obligation to either warn or protect the house from this potential danger? Or, putting the question in another manner, can Gilmore legitimately claim that the absence of this requirement by the VA, the plans, and trade custom removed an obligation he otherwise would have had? The presence of such requirement by the VA, the plans, or trade custom would manifestly have created a duty. Hall v. Hilbun, 466 So.2d 856, 872 (Miss. 1985). Does the absence of any such requirement remove any obligation? We hold that the VA standards, the plans and specifications and trade custom, while strong aids in answering the posed questions, are not in themselves conclusive. They do not as a matter of law absolve Gilmore under the facts of this case. In The T.J. Hooper, 60 F.2d 737 (2nd Cir.1932), barges were lost in a storm. There had been storm warnings issued by radio, but the tugs were not equipped with receiving sets. One of the questions presented was whether the absence of radio sets capable of receiving storm warnings made the vessels unseaworthy. The defense was that such receiving sets were neither used by industry custom nor required in the coastal vessel transportation industry. Judge Learned Hand noted: An adequate receiving set suitable for a coastwise tug can now be got at small cost and is reasonably reliable if kept up; obviously it is a source of great protection to their tows. 60 F.2d at 739. The Court then held: Is it then a final answer that the business had not yet generally adopted receiving sets? There are, no doubt, cases where courts seem to make the general practice of the calling the standard of proper diligence; we have indeed given some currency to the notion ourselves. Ketterer v. Armour & Co. (C.C.A.) 247 F. 921, 931, L.R.A. 1918D, 798; [(2nd Cir.1917)] Spang Chalfant & Co. v. Dimon, etc., Corp. (C.C.A.) 57 F.(2d) 965, 967. [(2nd Cir.1932)] Indeed in most cases reasonable prudence is in fact common prudence; but strictly it is never its measure; a whole calling may have unduly lagged in the adoption of new and available devices. It never may set its own tests, however persuasive be its usages. Courts must in the end say what is required; there are precautions so imperative that even their universal disregard will not excuse their omission. 60 F.2d at 740. In Helling v. Carey, 83 Wash.2d 514, 519 P.2d 981 (1974), an ophthalmologist was sued for failing to give a routine glaucoma test to a 32-year-old patient. His defense was that the incident of glaucoma in persons under 40 was 1/25,000, and the professional standards did not require routine glaucoma tests in patients under 40. The court noted that the test was inexpensive and simple. The court quoted the above language from The T.J. Hooper, supra, and from Texas & Pac. Ry. v. Behymer, 189 U.S. 468, 470, 23 S.Ct. 622, 623, 47 L.Ed. 905, 906 (1903), the following: What usually is done may be evidence of what ought to be done, but what ought to be done is fixed by a standard of reasonable prudence, whether it usually is complied with or not. The court then held: Under the facts of this case reasonable prudence required the timely giving of the pressure test to this plaintiff. The precaution of giving this test to detect the incidence of glaucoma to patients under 40 years of age is so imperative that irrespective of its disregartd by the standards of the ophthalmology profession, it is the duty of the courts to say what is required to protect patients under 40 from the damaging results of glaucoma. We therefore hold, as a matter of law, that the reasonable standard that should have been followed under the undisputed facts of this case was the timely giving of this simple, harmless pressure test to this plaintiff and that, in failing to do so, the defendants were negligent, which proximately resulted in the blindness sustained by the plaintiff for which the defendants are liable. 83 Wash.2d at 519, 519 P.2d at 983. Indeed this very holding, albeit by dictum, was reiterated in Hall v. Hilbun, supra , a malpractice action in which we stated: Conformity with established medical custom practiced by minimally competent physicians in a given area, while evidence of performance of the duty of care, may never be conclusive of such compliance. Cf. Helling v. Carey, 83 Wash.2d 514, 519 P.2d 981 (1974). The content of the duty of care must be objectively determined by reference to the availability of medical and practical knowledge which would be brought to bear in treatment of like or similar patients under like or similar circumstances by minimally competent physicians in the same field, given the facilities, resources and options available. The content of the duty of care may be informed by local medical custom but never subsumed by it. (Emphasis added) 466 So.2d at 872. Also, Berman v. Rubin, 138 Ga. App. 849, 227 S.E.2d 802 (1976) (as to attorneys). As Courts have noted our law cannot permit the custom or current standards of a trade or industry in and of themselves to be the final arbiter of what reasonably should be expected by the purchaser. As observed in Dixon v. Ledbetter, supra, 561 S.W.2d at 295, [t]hat a contractor uses customary methods is a matter to be considered, but that standard does not necessarily meet the test of ordinary care. There can certainly be such a thing as customary negligence, as the unchecked habit of jay walking in some communities may support. Even an entire industry, by adopting such careless methods to save time, effort or money, cannot be permitted to set its own uncontrolled standard. Prosser and Keaton, Torts, Ch. 5, § 33, p. 194 (5th Ed. 1984). As to the plans and specifications, in Wetmore v. Blueridge, Inc., 391 So.2d 951 (La. App. 1980), also involving a cracking floor because of soil, the Louisiana court of appeals observed, [w]e cannot say under these circumstances that the mere construction of the home in accordance with the plans (which did not provide for reinforcement of the concrete driveway) entitles the builder to escape liability for resultant defects. 391 So.2d at 953. The Court also held: It is well settled in the jurisprudence that a contractor is bound to warrant his work and is responsible for damages occasioned by defective workmanship or installation. It is implied in every building contract that the work will be performed in a skillful, careful, diligent and good workmanlike manner. 391 So.2d at 953. The contractor is considered as having expert knowledge of such things and must bring them to the attention of the owners who have no knowledge of such affairs. 391 So.2d at 954. In Luxurious Swimming Pools, Inc. v. Tepe, supra, 379 N.E.2d at 995, the Indiana Court of Appeals held that the contractor owes the duty to examine such plans and judge of their sufficiency; that he is bound to discover defects that are reasonably discoverable or patent, and to point the defect out to the owner. See also, Lewis v. Anchorage Asphalt Paving Co., 535 P.2d at 1199. The foundation to any permanent structure is all important. To have a sound and workmanlike foundation, it is imperative that the builder take into account the soil and subsurface. This is especially true in areas where builders are familiar with certain subsoils and the hazard they create to structures, but of which the general public may be unaware. Reasonable care demanded of Gilmore, a builder in whom the Yateses placed confidence, that he inform them and warn them of the problem encountered with yazoo clay which was prevalent in this area of the state. He should have told them this created a potential problem if it were under this residence, and that the only way to know for certain was to make a boring and test the subsoil. The jury was warranted in finding that this failure to warn was a proximate cause of the damages suffered by the Garretts, for which Gilmore should be held accountable. It is, of course, true that a builder/contractor in an ordinary case should not be required to go beyond the plans and specifications, they after all being a part of his contract spelling out his obligations. See 65 C.J.S. Negligence, § 95, at 1059-60. Neither should plans and specifications which clearly do not take into account a construction problem of which the builder/contractor, the man with expertise should be well aware, remove from him all duty to warn. In such case the plans and specifications should not constitute an absolute defense. The circuit judge did not grant any instructions on an implied warranty of habitability, and no cross-appeal on this question was taken by the Yateses. The distinction between the two concepts in a case such as this, however, is illusory. Keyes, supra, 439 So.2d at 673. An implied warranty of habitability is that the contractor-builder warrants the house has been built in a safe and workmanlike manner. A contractor-builder who fails to construct a house in a reasonably safe and workmanlike manner is negligent, in any event. 65 C.J.S. Negligence, § 4(6); Davis v. Anderson, supra .