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
On Application for Rehearing
PER CURIAM.
On application for rehearing, the plaintiff strenuously urges that the holding in the instant case is in conflict with our decision in Marine Insurance Company v. Strecker, 234 La. 522 , 100 So.2d 493 , because of our failure to properly apply Article 2315 of the LSA-Civil Code. There-is no conflict in these cases. The Court has given the basic codal article full and painstaking consideration. Both the breach of a. legal duty to the deceased and proximate causation are prerequisites for liability under the article. We have been unable to-find a breach of such a duty by the architects or any fault on their part which was the proximate cause of the tragic accident.. Hence the architects are not liable.
The rehearing is refused.