JOHN LUCIANI AND VIRGINIA LUCIANI, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
RICHARD T. HIGH, JAMES A. WINCHESTER, KARL RIDDLE AND RELIANCE HOMES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, INDIVIDUALLY AND SEVERALLY, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Luciamis sued contractors and an engineer for damages to their home. The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings for engineer Riddle, finding no privity of contract between the Luciamis and Riddle. The appellate court reversed, holding that an engineer can be liable to third parties for negligent performance even without direct contractual privity.
An engineer can be held liable to third parties foreseeably injured by the engineer's negligent performance of contractual duties, regardless of whether those third parties contracted directly with the engineer. Privity of contract is not required to impose liability for negligent testing that proximately causes economic loss.
[1] A licensed engineer may be liable to a homeowner for damages resulting from negligent land testing, even if the engineer was hired by the contractor and not directly by t…
[2] Privity of contract is not always required to support a claim for economic loss caused by the negligent performance of a contractual duty.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Riddle is liable not only to one in privity with him but also to those third persons who might foreseeably be injured as a result of his negligence.”
Establishes the core holding that contractual privity is not required for liability in negligence when injury to third parties is foreseeable.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Luciamis contracted for construction of a single-family residence. Engineer Riddle, a registered and licensed engineer, was employed by one or mor…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Foreseeability Of Injury cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Chief Judge.
This is an appeal from a final judgment entered subsequent to an order granting a judgment on the pleadings in favor of the defendant-appellee-Riddle.
Appellants sued appellees in a five count amended complaint for damages arising out of the construction of their single family residence. Counts IV and V were directed solely against appellee Riddle. Said counts charged that Riddle, a duly registered and licensed engineer, was employed by one or all of the appellees to perform the necessary testing and examination of the land upon which the residence was to be built; that Riddle negligently performed the tests resulting in damage to appellants’ property. Appellee Riddle answered said amended complaint, and after the cause was at issue Riddle moved for a judgment on the pleadings. The grounds of said motion were that the appellants had not contracted with Riddle and that privity of contract was necessary to support the appellants’ claim against Riddle. Said motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted and ultimately a final judgment was entered thereon.
It seems to us the theory alleged in the complaint against Riddle is one for economic loss proximately caused by the negligent performance of a contractual duty. Riddle is charged with negligently performing the tests on the land upon which the residence was to be built. The mere fact that Riddle was employed by the contractor rather than the owner to perform the necessary testing does not absolve him from liability to the owner for negligent testing resulting in damage to the owner. Riddle is liable not only to one in privity with him but also to those third persons who might foreseeably be injured as a result of his negligence. Audlane Lumber & Builders Supply, Inc. v. D. E. Britt Associates, Inc., 168 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964); A. R. Moyer, Inc. v. Graham, 285 So. 2d 397 (Fla.1973). Thus, it was error to grant the motion for judgment on the pleadings.
During the earlier stages of the pleadings appellee Riddle filed a motion for more definite statement regarding the alleged contract between Riddle and his employer. We think the resolution of this case would be facilitated by granting such motion and requiring a more particular specification of the services contracted for. REVERSED AND REMANDED.
CROSS and BERANEK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Philippe H. Moransais v. Heathman, 744 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 1999)…2d 1273, 1275 (Fla.1992). Under this definition, an engineer is considered a professional, see id. at 1276 n. 5 and, accordingly, has been held liable as such for failure to exercise due care in rendering professional services. See Luciani v. High, 372 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979) (involving suit against engineer based on negligently performed tests resulting in economic loss to plaintiffs property); Audlane Lumber & Builders Supply, Inc. v. D.E. Britt Assocs., Inc., 168 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964) (invo…
-
Md. Maint. Serv., Inc. v. Vittorio Palmieri and Bertha Palmieri, 559 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…. Further, a defendant’s liability extends to persons foreseeably injured by his failure to use reasonable care in performance of a contractual promise. Navajo Circle, Inc. v. Development Concepts Corporation, 373 So. 2d at 691-692; Luciani v. High, 372 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Gallichio v. Corporate Group Service, Inc., 227 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969); see Gelman v. Miami Elevator Company, 242 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970). This case is similar to Gelman v. Miami Elevator Company, 242 So. 2d at 156…
-
Lochrane Eng'g, Inc. v. Willingham Realgrowth Inv. Fund, Ltd., 552 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)…iable ex delicto to the buyer, Willingham. See Parliament Towers Condominium v. Parliament House Realty, Inc., 377 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Navajo Circle, Inc. v. Development Concepts Corp., 373 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Luciani v. High, 372 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). This is not a situation wherein the defendant expert, Lochrane, was simply a consultant outside the “chain of construction,” the situation this court recently considered in E.C. Goldman, Inc. v. A/R/C Associates, Inc., 543 So. 2…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- A. R. Moyer, Inc. v. Graham, 285 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 1973)
- Audlane Lumber & Builders Supply, Inc. v. D. E. Britt Assocs., Inc., 168 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)