observing “the primary object of this provision was to impose the duty on the architects to ensure to the owner that before final acceptance of the work, the building would be completed in accordance with the plans and specifications; and to ensure this result the architects were to make ‘frequent visits to the work site’ during the progress of work”
How later courts described this case
- observing “the primary object of this provision was to impose the duty on the architects to ensure to the owner that before final acceptance of the work, the building would be completed in accordance with the plans and specifications; and to ensure this result the architects were to make ‘frequent visits to the work site’ during the progress of work”
- held architect's approval of plans for hot water boiler system which exploded and killed plaintiff's husband was not proximate cause of the explosion where subcontractor did not rely on the plans
- architects were held not liable because they had no duty to inspect methods of boiler installation
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Thomas v. Fromherz Engineers, 159 So. 2d 612 (1964)
On appeal, plaintiff's counsel contends the case of Day v. National U. S. Radiator Corporation, 241 La. 288, 128 So.2d 660, relied upon by counsel for appellant is inapposite for the following reasons:
The opinion
McCALEB, Justice
(concurring).
I am in accord with the findings of fact: and law set forth in the majority opinion. However, I do not subscribe to the obiter dictum contained therein respecting the conclusions which would be reached by the Court under various assumed facts which do not appear herein. Therefore, I respectfully concur.