Court Opinion

ID: 9683074
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:22:01.793947+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:44.521109
License: Public Domain

CarletoN Harris, Chief Justice, dissenting. The opinion handed down in this, case on December 5, 1966, expressed my views as well as those of the court, and my thinking still conforms, to the reasoning therein set out. However, because of some statements made in the present majority opinion, I desire to make a few additional comments. The majorit y state that the only issue is “whether there was a contractual obligation upon the architect to be present continuously (my emphasis) during construction* * I do not agree that this is the issue, though, before commenting further on that question, I would like to point out that the record reflects that not even periodic checks were made, and if this had been done, the architect certainly would have noticed the free-standing west wall. Mr. Tom Gray, an employee of the architectural firm, testifying on behalf of the firm, agreed with other witnesses that a free-standing Avail, i.e., a wall that does not have any lateral support, is not stable. The west wall had been standing without support for apparently a period of a week to ten days, at the time the east wall fell. If a periodic check had been made (which surely would have included once in a week or ten days) the free-standing west wall would have been discovered, and the architect would have called the contractor’s attention to this admittedly dangerous condition. I think the issue is, “What were the duties imposed upon the architects under the term, ‘supervision’?” The A.I.A. (American Institute of Architects) General Conditions were specifically made a part of the contract, and Article 12 of these conditions is set out in full in the majority opinion, from which I quote as follows: “The Contractor shall take all necessary precautions for the safety of employees on the work, and shall comply with all applicable provisions of Federal, State, and Municipal safety laws and building codes to prevent accidents or injury to persons on, about or adjacent to the premises where the work is being performed. He shall erect and properly maintain at all times, as required by the conditions and progress of the work, all necessary safeguards for the protection of workmen and the public and shall post danger signs warning against the hazards created by such features of construction as protruding nails, hoists, well holes, elevator hatchways, scáffolding, window openings, stairways and falling materials; and he shall designate a responsible member of his organization on the work, whose duty shall be the prevention of accidents. The name and position of any person so designated shall he reported to the Architect by the Contractor. [My emphasis]” Referring to the italicized portion, I should like to ask why it was necessary that the name of the man responsible for safety be given to the architect unless the architect was charged with some responsibility for safety¶ Under the majority view, the only responsibility of Wittenberg, Delony and Davidson, Inc., “was to supervise and inspect only to the end that, when completed, the building would conform to the plans and speeifica-tions and the Little Rock Building Code. * * *” I reiterate that, if safety supervision clearly was the sole responsibility of the contractor, what interest would the architect have in whether necessary safeguards were provided for the workmen? At least, what interest that would demand (as required by the contract) his notification? Bear in mind that I am not saying that the architects are liable, nor did the original majority opinion so state. I am simply saying that, under the facts cited, a jury question was presented relative to whether the architects were charged with supervision of the work to the end that safety regulations would be observed. I therefore respectfully dissent.