Court Opinion

ID: 9705829
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:22:47.70584+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:16.434957
License: Public Domain

TRAPP, J., specially concurring: I concur in the disposition and analysis of the principal opinion, but I believe that it should be made explicit that the duty of the defendants, as architects, should be more clearly distinguished from any inference that an architect’s duty is to be determined upon the standards defined in the cited Dezort v. Village of Hinsdale and Delasky v. Village of Hinsdale. In those cases, the duty of the police officers was said to be determined by the circumstances of the particular case, with more specific reference to the officers’ observation of the physical condition of the prisoner, his conduct and statements, and from other information acquired during the course of the arrest procedure. However, in Miller v. DeWitt (1967), 37 Ill. 2d 273, 226 N.E.2d 630, and Laukkanen v. Jewel Tea Co. (1966), 78 Ill. App. 2d 153, 222 N.E.2d 584, it is stated that the common law duty of an architect in matters of design is to exercise that degree of skill and care that is customarily used by competent architects in the community. See Annot., 97 A.L.R.3d 455, (1980).