In Dorris v. Baxter & Woodman, the plaintiff, Leon Dorris, filed a lawsuit seeking damages for personal injuries sustained when he fell from a metal-grated walkway (air bridge) that collapsed while he was working on the renovation of a wastewater treatment plant owned by the City of Woodstock. In his lawsuit, Plaintiff named Baxter & Woodman, Inc. (“Baxter & Woodman”), Joseph J. Henderson & Son, Inc. (“Henderson”) and Enviroquip, Inc. (“Enviroquip”) as defendants claiming the negligence of each entity proximately caused his injuries. Baxter & Woodman, an engineering firm, was retained by the City of Woodstock to provide engineering services and serve as the City’s representative on the construction project. Henderson was the general contractor for the project and Enviroquip was the manufacturer of the air bridge[1]. Plaintiff worked for Fischer Mechanical Group (“Fischer”), the plumbing subcontractor on the project.
As part of the construction project, Henderson erected/constructed a metal-grated platform as part of an air bridge that was to provide access to the center of a digester (large concrete tank used to treat wastewater). Two weeks after Henderson had installed the metal- grated platform, Plaintiff was walking on the platform when a portion of the metal grating collapsed causing him to fall into the digester. At the time of the accident, the metal grating was not secured with banding at the edges or with attachment clips at the ends as specified in the manufacturer’s installation instructions. The specification for the metal grating, included in the construction documents, required that the edges of the grating be secured with banding bars and that the metal grating be installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s installation instructions and approved shop drawings. The manufacturer’s instructions, which stated that the grating should be banded at the edges and secured with at least four attachment clips at each end, were contained in a shop drawing approved by Baxter & Woodman and included as a specification in the construction documents.
The duties and responsibilities of Baxter & Woodman were defined in the contract documents. Specifically, Baxter & Woodman contractually agreed to act as the City’s on-site project representative during the construction. Baxter & Woodman agreed to enforce the plans, drawings, and specifications and to “provide full and complete construction supervision services.” The construction supervision services included “daily inspection” to ensure that all work was performed “in conformity with the Contract Documents.” Baxter & Woodman was further required to review and approve shop drawings, manufacturer’s literature and other submittals for compliance with the drawings and specifications. Significantly, this review and approval included the means and methods of construction that were “specifically and expressly called for by the Contract Documents.” Further, Baxter & Woodman had the authority to reject work that did not conform to the contract documents.
Baxter & Woodman’s contract obligated it to provide a resident project representative to observe the work in progress and assist the engineer in determining if the work is “proceeding in accordance with the Contract Documents.” The resident project representative was required to report any work that “does not conform to the Contract Documents.” Per it contract, Baxter & Woodman had the authority to direct or assume control over “any aspect of the means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures of construction [where] such advice or directions are specifically required by the Contract Documents.”
Prior to trial, Baxter & Woodman was granted summary judgment as the court determined that it did not owe a duty to Plaintiff. This decision was based on the court’s belief that any duty Baxter & Woodman had to inspect the air bridge for compliance with the plans and specifications had not arisen as of the time of Plaintiff’s accident since the construction of the air bridge was not complete when Plaintiff fell. However, the trial court later reversed itself based on the fact that Baxter & Woodman’s contract did not require it to inspect the construction for compliance with the plans and specifications only after the work was complete. There was also deposition testimony indicating that Baxter & Woodman’s resident project representative had the authority to inspect the work whenever he chose. Further, it was Baxter & Woodman’s job to make sure that the work was performed in accordance with the plans and specifications and the construction documents expressly provided that the metal grating for the air bridge be banded and clipped before the platform was assembled over the digester. As such, the trial court reinstated the case against Baxter & Woodman.
At trial, Baxter & Woodman’s resident project representative, Kevin Hinderliter, testified that he inspected ongoing work for defective materials and to enforce the contract specifications throughout the course of the project. Mr. Hinderliter acknowledged that he had at times discovered work that did not meet the specifications, and in those instances, he directly advised the contractor of the variance so the defect could be corrected. Mr. Hinderliter testified that, at time, he specifically insisted that certain work be redone in a manner that complied with the specifications. Additionally, Mr. Hinderliter discussed safety issues at Baxter & Woodman’s progress meetings and dealt with safety concerns. Furthermore, Mr. Hinderliter testified that on the day of Plaintiff’s accident, he knew that the grating did not have the banding along the edges or the attachment clips at the ends as required by the specifications.
At the close of the evidence, the jury found that Baxter & Woodman was 70% liable for Plaintiff’s injuries and returned a verdict of $11 million in favor of Plaintiff. Judgment of $3,675,000 was entered against Baxter & Woodman after the set off from the Henderson/Enviroquip settlement.
Baxter & Woodman appealed claiming, in part, that it owed no duty to Plaintiff.
The First District Appellate Court held that Baxter & Woodman had a duty to exercise its supervisory authority to ensure that the air bridge’s metal grating was secured by banding bars and attachment clips. Dorris v. Baxter & Woodman, No. 1-07-3126, p. 13 (December 2, 2008). In its reasoning, the Court cited various portions of Baxter & Woodman’s contract which obligated it to enforce the specifications, including the means and methods of the work that were expressly provided for by the contract documents, and provided authority to reject work that did not conform to the plans. Id. As such, the Court stated that Baxter & Woodman clearly and specifically agreed to this duty by the terms of its contract. Id. Further, the Court concluded that the contract documents required Baxter & Woodman to inspect the work for compliance with the specifications on an ongoing basis and to reject work that did not comply with the construction document. Id. at 14. Accordingly, the Court cited Putman v. Village of Bensenville, 337 Ill. App. 3d 197, 208, 786 N.E.2d 203 (2nd Dist. 2003) in stating that a claim of negligence may be based upon the failure to perform an act required by contract. In such circumstances where the duty of care arises out of a contract, the scope of such duty is defined by the terms of the contract. Putman, 377 Ill. App. 3d at 208-09; see also Ferentchak v. Village of Frankfort, 105 Ill.2d 474, 482, 475 N.E.2d 822 (1985).
In Illinois, a design professional has a duty to protect a subcontractor’s employee from injury on a construction site where the design professional undertakes significant supervisory responsibilities or agrees to ensure that the work is performed in accordance with the contract documents. Dorris v. Baxter & Woodman, No. 1-07-3126, pp. 12-13 (December 2, 2008); see also Miller v. DeWitt, 37 Ill.2d 273, 284-85, 226 N.E.2d 630 (1967).
This duty will not be charge of a design professional where the contract provides that the design professional (1) has no supervisory responsibility, (2) has no control of or responsibility for the means, methods, techniques, procedures or sequences of construction, (3) has no responsibility for the failure of any contractor to perform the work in accordance with the contract documents, and (4) has no responsibility to devise, implement or enforce any safety precautions or programs for the project. Dorris v. Baxter & Woodman, No. 1-07-3126, pp. 12-13 (December 2, 2008); see also Putman, 337 Ill. App. 3d at 208-09; Ferentchak, 105 Ill.2d at 480-81, 475 N.E.2d 822 (1985).
Some pointers:
- In order to avoid claims and the liabilities as incurred by Baxter & Woodman, it is very important for design professionals to take certain precautions in drafting their contract. A design professional’s contract should explicitly detail the scope of services it is providing. The contract should unambiguously state that the design professional (1) has no supervisory responsibility, (2) has no control of or responsibility for the means, methods, techniques, procedures or sequences of construction, (3) has no responsibility for the failure of any contractor to perform the work in accordance with the contract documents, and (4) has no responsibility to devise, implement or enforce any safety precautions or programs for the project. As part of a design professional’s construction administration services, the designer often reviews the general progress of the work and may certify that work was performed in accordance with the contract documents. However, if this service is to be included in the design professional’s scope of services, the contract should explicitly state that the designer is not required to make an exhaustive or continuous inspections of the work and that the designer is not required to ensure proper construction methods or safety precautions or to see that construction documents are followed. Rather, the design professional may provide opinions or recommendations to the owner, which the owner need not necessarily follow.
- Additionally, it is equally important for design professionals to strictly adhere to their contract and not assume any additional duties by their conduct. The design professional should also avoid maintaining a continuous on-site presence so as to avoid any inference that it is supervising the construction or in control of the premises. Further, the design professional should avoid holding or attending jobsite safety meetings or inspections so as to avoid any inference of control or supervision over safety. If the design professional becomes aware of a variance from the construction documents or any potential safety hazard, the designer should report the issue to the owner and qualify its report as an opinion or suggestion for consideration by the owner. The designer should not directly stop any contractor’s work or issue any directive based on the construction work. Again, reporting opinions for consideration to the owner with a qualifier (i.e. this report is only the opinion of the designer and does not constitute a directive of action or in any way modify the designer’s responsibilities or duties under its contract) is the most prudent course of action.
Following these recommendations does not guarantee that the design professional will not be sued or even found liable; however, these tips are provided to help reduce the risk of exposure associated with design professionals’ services.
[1] Henderson and Enviroquip (along with Plaintiff’s employer) settled with Plaintiff shortly before trial for $7,325,000, leaving Baxter & Woodman as the only remaining defendant.
Joshua Glazov over at the Construction Law Attorney Blog has an April 23, 2009, posting about Illinois House Bill 344 which, as introduced, would amend the Illinois Contractor Prompt Payment Act to limit, on a percentage basis, the amount of retainage legally allowed under construction contracts to contractors and subs.
as proof of your coverage as an additional insured. In 
In what is sure to be a case you’ll want to follow… the 
The relationship went south over disputes about payment and budgeting. The architect sent the vet a letter warning that all the plans they had produced were proprietary and that no one could use them to complete the project and demanded return of the plans. The vet responded that the plans were useless and that they had been “rolled up and discarded.”
In 2003 the theatre had the roof inspected because it had been leaking. Shortly after the inspection, the theatre sent the mall a letter requesting that the mall replace the roof. The mall did not respond and the theatre had its attorney send another letter that said:
The Kunkels hired PK to build a new roof for their home. The contract price plus extras came to $5,623. After the contract was entered into, PK never furnished the Kunkels with the required: “
In the circuit court, the designer’s lawyers argued that the contract provision at issue meant that the four-year statute of limitations period began to run in 1997 thanks to the AIA contract provision. The trial court agreed and dismissed the action. The owners appealed and argued that a different section of the statute of limitations provisions (
International
Neither of these arguments is very good. The second is laughable. While it is true that the Illinois Supreme court has yet to specifically address this issue, many courts have already reasoned that because the work is performed by a licensed architect, it is the licensure – which is proof that standards are met through the design professional’s credentialing process - that keeps the public safe, which is the point of the process. The fact that an entity may register as a professional design firm has nothing to do with public safety; public safety is the policy behind the act that requires registration. The court upheld the contracts and their arbitration provisions and allowed the action against the design professionals to proceed in arbitration against the desires of the plaintiffs.
.jpg)
construction project. 
In situations where the fee is a fraction of the total project cost, consider the personal guarantee.
2)
