Opinion ID: 1598571
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: engineers

Text: The District Court affirmed the dismissal, with prejudice, of the complaint against the engineers because, their contract was with the general contractor and they were likewise entitled to the benefits of the decision in Allen v. Employers Service Corporation, supra. Petitioner has sought certiorari only as to the owners, architect, and compensation insurance carrier and, as a result, the engineers have filed no brief with this Court. Consequently, the decision of the District Court must stand. However, even if we were to consider the complaint against the engineers, it would appear that since, as the District Court found, their contract was with the general contractor, the engineers would indeed be entitled to Allen -type immunity from third-party tort suit. Although the question is not before us today, it would seem that all that was said in the foregoing discussion of the immunities and liabilities of architects also may be said of the immunities and liabilities of engineers or, for that matter, any other independent contractors. That is, if the engineers' contract is with the employer, and the engineers perform services more properly described as being for the employer rather than for the owner, then the engineers come under the employer's umbrella of immunity from third-party tort suit. [13] Conversely, if the engineers work as independent contractors, they are entitled to no such immunity. Assuming the engineers are found to be working as independent contractors, they will be held liable for damages suffered as a result of their negligence, as defined by standards analogous to those applied to architects in Geer v. Bennett, supra .