VICTOR P. KRESTOW, APPELLANT,
v.
SHIRLEY O. WOOSTER, 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.
Architect Victor Krestow appealed a jury verdict in favor of defendants Wooster, Russell, and their firm in a professional malpractice and breach of contract action. The court affirmed, holding that an architect satisfies its duty of due care by reasonably relying on the client's lawyer's legal advice regarding zoning compliance, and cannot be held liable if that advice later proves incorrect.
An architect satisfies its duty of due care in submitting plans conforming to local zoning ordinances when it reasonably relies on the client's lawyer's legal advice concerning the applicable zoning classification. The architect cannot be held liable in tort or contract if the lawyer's advice was incorrect.
[1] An architect owes a duty of due care to clients to ensure building plans conform with local zoning ordinances.
[2] An architect discharges the duty of due care by reasonably relying on the client's lawyer's legal advice regarding zoning classifications.
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“That duty is discharged, however, when the architect, as in the instant case, reasonably relies on the legal advice of the client's lawyer concerning the nature of the applicable zoning classification and submits architectural plans in conformance with such zoning.”
Establishes the key principle that an architect's duty of due care is satisfied by reasonable reliance on the client's lawyer's legal advice regarding zoning.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKrestow sued architects Wooster and Russell for professional malpractice and breach of contract, alleging they submitted building and architectural pl…
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 Duty Of Due Care cases and more on FLexlaw
HUBBART, Judge.
The plaintiff Victor P. Krestow appeals from a final judgment entered upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendants Shirley 0. Wooster, Jr., T. Trip Russell, William Russell, Russell-Wooster Associates, and their insurer, the Continental Casualty Company in an action for professional architect malpractice, breach of contract, and fraud and a counterclaim by the defendants against the plaintiff for monies owed on a contract for architectural services, such judgment having been entered in the Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida. The plaintiff appeals raising a number of contentions none of which in our opinion rise to the level of reversible error sufficient to upset the judgment appealed from. We accordingly reject such contentions and affirm. Gallegher v. Federal Insurance Co., 346 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Strahm v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 285 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Bell’s Fish & Poultry Co. v. Jenkins, 227 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969); Warfield v. Sparks, 203 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967).
One point merits brief discussion. The plaintiff contends that he was entitled upon motion at trial to a directed verdict on his claim for professional malpractice and breach of contract against the defendants as architects. He contends that as a matter of law the defendants breached their duty of due care in submitting building and architectural plans in conformance with local zoning ordinances because the plans in fact violated such local ordinances. We cannot agree.
The law is clear that an architect owes a duty of due care to his clients in arranging site plans and drawing buildings in conformance with building and zoning codes as well as other similar local ordinances. That duty is discharged, however, when the architect, as in the instant ease, reasonably relies on the legal advice of the client’s lawyer concerning the nature of the applicable zoning classification and submits architectural plans in conformance with such zoning. There can be no action against the architect in tort or contract if it later develops, as here, that the legal advice was wrong and the zoning classification is different from that represented by the lawyer. Robsol, Inc. v. Garris, 358 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 3d DCA) (opinion filed May 16, 1978); Graulich v. Berlowe & Associates, Inc., 338 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Maritime Construction Co. v. Benda, 262 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972); Geer v. Bennett, 237 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970); Bott v. Moser, 175 Va. 11, 7 S.E. 2d 217 (1940).
Although there is a conflict in the evidence as to whether the defendants obtained the legal advice in question with reference to the applicable zoning classification, it is clear that there was sufficient evidence upon which the jury could have reasonably concluded that such advice was given and that the defendants relied thereon. It is not the function of this court to reweigh and re-evaluate the evidence on appeal; that is the sole function of the jury as the trier of fact. Warfield v. Sparks, 203 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Sch. Bd. OF Broward Cnty. v. Pierce Goodwin Alexander & Linville, 137 So. 3d 1059 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…ocal ordinances. The architect is liable to his client in tort and contract when that duty is breached as to any damages proximately caused by such breach. Robsol, Inc. v. Garris, 358 So. 2d 865, 866 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); see also Krestow v. Wooster, 360 So. 2d 32, 32 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). Under the common law, “[t]he architect’s undertaking does not imply or guarantee a perfect plan.” Bayshore Dev. Co. v. Bonfoey, 75 Fla. 455, 78 So. 507, 510 (1918). Thus, so long as the architect uses the ordinary and reasona…
-
Puder v. Raymond Int'l Builders, Inc., 424 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…s, Inc. v. Edwards, 374 So. 2d 490 (Fla.1979); General Portland Land Development Co. v. Stevens, 395 So. 2d 1296 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Walter Taft Bradshaw & Associates v. Bedsole, 374 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); see generally Krestow v. Wooster, 360 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); (3) Puder ultimately dismissed all claims against Raymond after failing to present any evidence of Raymond’s negligence or bad faith in connection with the settlement, see MacBain v. Bowling, 374 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); (4)…
Authorities Cited
- Geer v. Ames Bennett and John B. Marion, 237 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)
- Gallagher v. Fed. Ins. Co., 346 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Strahm v. AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co., 285 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Mar. Constr. Co., Inc. v. Benda, 262 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)
- Graulich v. Frederic H. Berlowe & Assocs., Inc., 338 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Salah Gouda v. Blue Goose Growers, Inc., 358 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Warfield v. Sparks, 203 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)
- Bell's Fish & Poultry Co., Inc. v. Jenkins, 227 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969)