Black + Vernooy Architects v. Smith
346 S.W.3d 877
Tex. App.2011Background
- Architects designed Maxfields' vacation home with a balcony; Nash built it under Nash's construction contract incorporating design/contract administration form; balcony was not constructed per design (no joist hangers, no rim joist, balcony attached with plywood, etc.); balcony collapsed injuring Lou Ann Smith and Gravely; Nash and Maxfields settled; jury found Architects 10% responsible; district court rendered judgment against Architects; appellate reversal requested to hold no duty owed to Smiths.
- Smiths alleged Architects owed duty to protect Maxfields and extend to Smiths as third-party beneficiaries or via common law; contract expressly limited duties to Maxfields; Architects argued no duty to Smiths; trial record showed Architects had authority to guard but no control over construction means; statute and industry contracts concerned.
- Court held Architects owed no duty to Smiths as a matter of law, because no contractual third-party beneficiary status and no common-law duty extending to Smiths.
- District court judgment against Architects reversed and Smiths take nothing.
- Dissent argues there is a limited, narrow common-law-duty extension to third-party visitors under contract administration duties, and would hold BVA liable for open/obvious defects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Architects owe a duty to Smiths? | Smiths | Architects | No duty owed to Smiths |
| Did contract with Maxfields extend duty to Smiths as third-party beneficiaries? | Smiths | Architects | No third-party beneficiary duty under contract |
| Does common-law duty extend to third-party visitors? | Smiths | Architects | No common-law duty to Smiths |
| Was evidence legally sufficient to prove any breach by Architects? | Smiths | Architects | Not reached/not necessary to sustain judgment against Architects |
Key Cases Cited
- Dukes v. Philip Johnson/Alan Ritchie Architects, P.C., 252 S.W.3d 586 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2008) (duty depends on contract with employer; breach can give rise to tort liability to third parties)
- Hunt v. Ellisor & Tanner, Inc., 739 S.W.2d 933 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1987) (contract language ending with duty to guard does not negate architect's liability for providing information)
- Romero v. Parkhill, Smith & Cooper, Inc., 881 S.W.2d 522 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1994) (engineer not liable where no right to control means and methods of construction)
- Stine v. Stewart, 80 S.W.3d 586 (Tex. 2002) (third-party-beneficiary status must be intent to confer benefit; not implied)
- J.P. Morgan Chase Bank v. Texas Contract Carpet, Inc., 302 S.W.3d 515 (Tex.App.-Austin 2009) (reluctant to recognize new duty; contract-based duties often limit tort liability)
- Gables CVF, Inc. v. Bahr, Vermeer & Haecker Architect, Ltd., 244 Neb. 346 (Neb. 1993) (not Texas; discussed architect's duty under contract administration)
- Ely v. General Motors Corp., 927 S.W.2d 774 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1996) (negligence claims not barred by contract disclaimer to third parties)