Opinion ID: 1790126
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the standard of conduct

Text: We can further refine the meaning of the above and oft-stated phrases workmanlike manner and reasonable care and skill. Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 299A (1965) and pertinent portions of the comment state: § 299 A. Undertaking in Profession or Trade Unless he represents that he has greater or less skill or knowledge, one who undertakes to render services in the practice of a profession or trade is required to exercise the skill and knowledge normally possessed by members of that profession or trade in good standing in similar communities. Comment: a. Skill, as the word is used in this Section, is something more than the mere minimum competence required of any person who does an act, under the rule stated in § 299. It is that special form of competence which is not part of the ordinary equipment of the reasonable man, but which is the result of acquired learning, and aptitude developed by special training and experience. All professions, and most trades, are necessarily skilled, and the word is used to refer to the special competence which they require. (Emphasis added) b. Profession or trade. This Section is thus a special application of the rule stated in § 299. It applies to any person who undertakes to render services to another in the practice of a profession, such as that of physician or surgeon, dentist, pharmacist, oculist, attorney, accountant, or engineer. It applies also to any person who undertakes to render services to others in the practice of a skilled trade, such as that of airplane pilot, precision machinist, electrician, carpenter, blacksmith, or plumber. This Section states that the minimum skill and knowledge which the actor undertakes to exercise, and therefore to have. If he has in fact greater skill than that common to the profession or trade, he is required to exercise that skill, as stated in § 299, Comment e. ..... ... It is a matter of the skill which he represents himself to have, or is understood to undertake to have, rather than of the skill which he actually possesses, or which the task requires. In Firemen's Mut. Ins. Co. v. High Point Sprinkler Co., 266 N.C. 134, 146 S.E.2d 53, 59 (1966), a suit against a sprinkler system contractor, the Court held: One who engages in a business, occupation or profession represents to those who deal with him in that capacity that he possesses the knowledge, skill and ability, with reference to matters relating to such calling, which others engaged therein ordinarily possess. He also represents that he will exercise reasonable care in the use of his skill and in the application of his knowledge and will exercise his best judgment in the performance of work for which his services are engaged, within the limits of such calling. See also, Calderwood v. Bender, 189 Conn. 580, 457 A.2d 313 (1983). The last three decades have given special impetus to these holdings. Public tolerance no longer exists in this country for shoddy products or services, whatever the source. Our law, foreign competition, and an alert public are teaching our professions, trades and industries the salutary, if painful, lesson that any success unattended by quality will be ephemeral. If the product sold or service rendered is less than the customer or client is fairly and reasonably entitled to expect under current and existing states of skill, knowledge and technology, our courts will afford relief. In this case we have some basic questions. Were the existence of yazoo clay and the potential problems to structures in Madison County a fact which builders in that area should reasonably have known in 1977? Did Gilmore have a duty to warn the Yateses of a potential yazoo clay problem? Should Gilmore have informed the Yateses that a soil test should be made before building? Should Gilmore have constructed the house without making a soil test? Should Gilmore have constructed a house with no allowance for the potential damage posed by yazoo clay just a few feet beneath the surface? There was ample evidence before the jury that yazoo clay was the cause of the cracking and damage to this house. No one disputes that what happened to this house should not have happened. No earthquake or tornado struck it. Nor did the Garretts experience some minor cracks such as can sometimes occur in masonry construction in even the best laid foundations on some soils. Major damage was done to this house. We can safely surmise that neither the Yateses nor the Garretts would have been remotely interested in purchasing the house had they anticipated this breakdown. Nor were yazoo formations unknown to builders in this area of the state in 1977. Indeed, this Court handed down a decision in January, 1977, on severe structural problems to a building in Hinds County caused by yazoo clay, which was constructed in 1968. Dickerson Const. Co., Inc. v. Process Eng., 341 So.2d 646 (Miss. 1977). There was evidence of publications, easily available, as early as 1960 giving information on the soils and subsoils in Madison County. The jury was warranted in concluding yazoo clay was a potential problem in Madison County of which builders should have been aware in 1977. Gilmore therefore had a duty to warn the Yateses of the potential problem and make a soil test before construction. This he failed to do. [A] contractor who knows, or should know of a defect in a particular subsoil does not perform his contractual obligations in a workmanlike manner if he fails to notify the owner of the existence of the condition. Annotation, Duty of Contractor to Warn Owners of Defects in Subsurface Conditions, 73 A.L.R.3rd 1213, 1215, (1976). Mr. Lewis (the contractor) had a duty to volunteer information as to the contents of the fill and underlying soil. Lewis v. Anchorage Asphalt Paving Co., 535 P.2d 1188, 1198 (Alaska 1975); Rippy v. Phipps, 475 P.2d 646 (Colo. App. 1970); Wurst v. Pruyn, 250 La. 1109, 202 So.2d 268 (1967); Greneaux v. Castle I, Inc., 404 So.2d 309 (La. App. 1981) (For the contractor has expert knowledge of such things, or should have, and he must bring these things to the attention of the owners, who have no knowledge of such affairs. 404 So.2d at 311) (quoting Wurst v. Pruyn, supra ; Luxurious Swimming Pools, Inc. v. Tepe, 177 Ind. App. 384, 379 N.E.2d 992, 996 (1978); Dixon v. Ledbetter, 262 Ark. 758, 561 S.W.2d 294 (1978). Had Gilmore taken the trouble to acquaint himself with the problem, he may not have wanted the contract to build the house in the first place. Or, the Yateses being warned may not have wanted a house on yazoo clay, either. This we can never know because Gilmore did not trouble his mind on this matter. [3] The jury was warranted in finding Gilmore negligent in failing to warn the Yateses of a possible problem, and in undertaking to construct the house without making a soil test, and such failures alone or in combination proximately caused the damage to the house. Moreover, having undertaken the job without informing the Yateses of the potential danger, Gilmore was under a duty to build it in a manner reasonably commensurate with the then existing skill, knowledge and technology prevailing in the construction industry to afford protection for a residential dwelling constructed over a yazoo clay foundation. White v. Mitchell, 123 Wash. 630, 213 P. 10 (1923); Rippy v. Phipps, supra ; Wurst v. Pruyn, supra ; Kavalaris v. Anthony Bros., Inc., 32 Cal. Rptr. 205, 217 Cal. App.2d 737 (1963); Dixon v. Ledbetter, supra ; McFeeters v. Renollett, 210 Kan. 158, 500 P.2d 47 (1972); Terlinde v. Neely, 275 S.C. 395, 271 S.E.2d 768 (1980); 17A C.J.S. Contracts, § 515(e), p. 857: As a general rule, the builder is responsible for defects caused by defects in the soil ... Gilmore gave the Yateses no information as to yazoo clay, and made no allowance whatever in the foundation for yazoo clay just a few feet beneath the surface.