Opinion ID: 1429035
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: liability of the state's engineer [poe] for the undisclosed site conditions

Text: The district court found that Poe was acting as an agent for a disclosed principal  the State  and thus was not liable for damages ex contractu. [70] There is competent evidence in the record to support this finding. [71] Cook does not contest it; rather, he asserts that Poe's negligence in preparing the plans and specifications gives Cook a cause of action in tort. In Keel v. Titan Construction Corporation [72] we held that accompanying every contract is a common-law duty to perform the task agreed to be done with care, skill, reasonable experience and faithfulness. A negligent failure to observe any of these conditions may constitute a tort as well as a breach of contract. [73] In Keel we characterized an architect's defective design as a negligent breach of a contract for which imposable liability is not necessarily dependent upon a pre-existing privity in legal relationship between the person injured and the person causing the injury. [74] In Part I of the opinion we held that the State had no duty to disclose the wet site conditions. Even assuming that Poe was negligent in preparing the information it furnished to the bidders, that would not be sufficient to satisfy Cook's burden as the injury complained of must have been reasonably foreseeable to the tortfeasor. [75] The soil borings were prepared by the State and not by Poe. Cook was invited by the plans and specifications to make inquiries of Poe but failed to do so. Poe's representatives discussed the subsurface water with all who attended the pre-bid conferences. The water conditions were observed by all bidders who conducted a thorough investigation of the site as required by the contract documents. Poe had the same right as the State to anticipate that the contractor would conduct the required investigation. [76] The district court's decision on this issue must be affirmed. The trial court's judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with our pronouncement. HARGRAVE, V.C.J., and HODGES, LAVENDER and WILSON, JJ., concur. SUMMERS, J., concurs in result.