EDWARD L. FARRAR, APPELLANT,
v.
ALLEN E. ARTHUR, JR., ET AL., 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.
Summary judgment was improper because disputed issues of material fact exist regarding the architect's supervision and resulting damages.
Dr. Farrar hired architect Arthur to design and supervise building construction. Dr. Farrar alleged the building was not constructed according to plan…
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 Causation Of Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
This is an appeal from a summary judgment in a contract and negligence action. We reverse.
It is alleged and there is evidence to support the fact that Arthur was hired to design and, to a limited extent, supervise the construction of a building for Dr. Far-rar. Dr. Farrar and his expert witness testified by affidavit and deposition that the building was not constructed in accordance with the plans and that defects caused leaks and gave rise to other claims for damages. Dr. Farrar says that if architect Arthur had correctly supervised construction of the building then it would have been built in accordance with the plans and no defects and resultant injuries would have occurred. Arthur says that because Dr. Farrar’s expert said he had “no criticism” of his work he is entitled to a summary judgment. However, the expert said he was not hired to determine whether the architect was at fault and that he did not “... have enough information to render an opinion concerning whether or not the services rendered by Mr. Arthur ... contributed in any way to the leaks ...” Arthur presented no expert or other evidence, other than his own statement, to refute the statements of Dr. Farrar and his witness.
There are disputed issues of material fact to be resolved so summary judgment was improper. Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla.1966). There is evidence that the building was not built in accordance with the plans and specifications, that Arthur had a duty to assure that the building was built according to the plans, that he breached that duty and that Farrar suffered injury. The disputed evidence must be resolved by trial.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
SHARP, C.J., and COBB, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bravo v. Chapkis, 549 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)…ith a southbound vehicle driven by Lisa Dixon, the defendant in the lawsuit below. Because we think the record presents material issues as to how, where, and in what manner the automobiles came to their collision point, we reverse. Farrar v. Arthur, 544 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Singleton v. Ranz, 534 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), rev. denied, 542 So. 2d 1332 (Fla.1989); Pylser v. Hados, 388 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). The trial judge ruled there was no issue as to Dixon’s liability for Bravo’s i…
-
Henley v. E. Airlines, 559 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…box. Because we think the record presents material issues as to who employed the baggage handler and whether he was negligent, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. See Bravo v. Chapkis, 549 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Farrar v. Arthur, 544 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). REVERSED and REMANDED. GOSHORN and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Gory Roofing Tile Mfg., Inc. v. Davison, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1966)