This is a wrongful death and survival action in which the jury returned a total verdict of $205,000.00 against thе appellants. All appellants filed Motions for Judgment N.O.V. and for a New Trial, and all motions were denied by the Court below. All three appellants have appealed to this Court.
Appellee’s decedent (Heath) was killed when a trench in which he was working collapsed. Heath was an employee of Environmental, a sewer construction contractor. Environmental was installing sewer lines for Lancaster Area Sewer Authority (LASA) pursuant to a contract. Huth was LASA’s consulting engineer on the sewer project pursuant to a contract between Huth and LASA. Heath and other workmen were in the process of digging a lateral trench, when it collapsed and buried him. The lateral was not braсed or shored against collapse, which lack of bracing or *92 shoring violated both state and federal safety laws. An employee of Huth was presеnt at the scene, his specific assignment having been to inspect the progress of construction.
The liability of Huth was predicated on two theories, (1) thаt Heath was the beneficiary of the contract between Huth and LASA and (2) that Huth wаs liable under Section 324(a) of the Second Restatement of Torts which provides that, “One who undertakes, gratuitously or for consideration, to render serviсes to another which he should recognize as necessary for the protection of a third person or his things, is subject to liability to the third person for physical harm resulting from his failure to exercise reasonable care to protect his undertaking, if (a) his failure to exercise reasonable care increases the risk of such harm, or (b) he has undertaken to perform a duty owеd by the other to the third person, or (c) the harm is suffered because of reliance of the other or the third person upon the undertaking.” It is clear that Huth wаs properly found liable under either theory. The contract between Huth and LASA provided that Huth was to supervise the work, periodically inspect it, and assist in safeguarding the owner against defects and deficiencies on the part of the contractors. Huth was clearly negligent under the evidence for fаilure to properly supervise the job and inspect the work pursuant to its contract. Huth’s liability under Section 324(a) is clear under the evidence in its failure to exercise reasonable care. Huth’s motions were properly dеnied by the Court below.
The liability of LASA is predicated on Section 416 of the Seсond Restatement of Torts, which provides: “Work Dangerous in Absence of Spеcial Precautions. One who employs an independent contractor to do work which the employer should recognize as likely to create during its progress a peculiar risk of physical harm to others unless special precautions are taken, is subject to liability for physical harm causеd to them by failure of the contractor to exercise reasonablе care to take such precautions, even though the employer has provided for such precautions in
*93
the contract or otherwise.” Seсtion 416 has been adopted as the law of Pennsylvania:
Philadelphia Electric Company v. James Julian, Inc.,
The liability of Environmental need not be considered by this Court since it has been informed by Environmental that it filed an appeal only to preserve rights of indemnificatiоn, and that matter has been amicably resolved between LASA and Environmental.
The orders of the court below are hereby affirmed.