Hutchings v. Harry

• Decision Date: 15 December 1970
• Docket Number: No. 70--220,70--220
• Citation: 242 So.2d 153
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals
• Parties: Julia HUTCHINGS, as Mother and next friend of Wendy Hutchings, a minor, and Julia Hutchings, individually, Appellants, v. Milton C. HARRY, F & R Builders, Inc., and F & R Home Building Corp., Appellees.

Page 153

242 So.2d 153

Julia HUTCHINGS, as Mother and next friend of Wendy Hutchings, a minor, and Julia Hutchings, individually, Appellants, v. Milton C. HARRY, F & R Builders, Inc., and F & R Home Building Corp., Appellees.

No. 70--220.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 15, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 11, 1971.

Edward C. Vining, Jr., and R. M. MacArthur, Miami, for appellants.

Waldo G. Rothenberg, So. Miami, for Milton C. Harry.

Adams, George & Wood and David L. Willing, Miami, for F & R Builders, Inc. appellees.

Before PEARSON, C.J., and BARKDULL and SWANN, JJ.

PEARSON, Chief Judge.

This appeal is from a final judgment dismissing appellants' complaint against three of five defendants. The complaint was dismissed without leave to amend upon motions of the appellees, therefore the question presented upon each dismissal is whether the facts alleged showed an inherent defect in the cause.

The complaint alleges that the minor appellant was injured when she ran into a sliding glass door which broke and fell on her. She was at the time of the injury a social guest in the owner's home. She brought her suit against the owners, the architect who designed the house, the builder of the house, and the seller of the house. The appellees who were dismissed from the action are: (1) Milton C. Harry, the architect, (2) F & R Builders, Inc., the builders, (3) F & R Home Building Corp., the sellers. We hold the complaint was fatally defective as to each appellee and will discuss the allegations of the complaint as to each appellee.

The allegations of the complaint as to the liability of the architect are: (1) he is a registered architect; (2) he holds himself out as skilled and knowledgeable; (3) he designed and specified the materials for the residence in which appellant was injured; (4) he was careless in that his design and specifications did not provide for decals or markings on the door; (5) he did not specify tempered or 'breakaway' type glass for the door. The liability to members of the public of a professional architect who provides plans to an owner is ordinarily limited to injures which result from the architect's failure to comply with recognized standards of good practice in his profession in the same locality at the same time. Paxton v. Alameda County, 119 Cal.App.2d 393, 259 P.2d 934 (1953); Covil v. Robert & Co. Associates, 112 Ga.App. 163, 144 S.E.2d 450 (1965); Nauman v. Harold K. Beecher & Associates, 24 Utah 2d 172, 467 P.2d 610 (1970).

We conclude that the complaint was fatally defective as to the architect because it affirmatively appears that there was no causal connection between the duty owed the public and the injury. Cf. Mai Kai, Inc. v. Colucci, Fla.1967, 205 So.2d 291.

The allegations of the complaint as to the contractor are:

'(b) Defendant 'Contractor' was careless and negligent in furnishing said residence for sale to, and use by, members of the public, in a condition and state whereby said transparent sliding glass panel doors were not marked with decals or otherwise and were not of the tempered plateglass or 'break-away' type whereby injuries to those persons accidentally walking or running into them would be eliminated or minimized; and further said 'Contractor' negligently failed to install sliding doors of a type and so constructed that they would not fall out of place and allow the glass therein to break when a person accidentally bumped into said doors.'

This allegation must be read together with the allegation that the minor appellant 'ran into said closed door which broke and fell on her.' It is further clear from the complaint that the builder had completed his work and delivered it to the owner.

In Calvera v. Green Springs, Inc., Fla.App.1960, 220 So.2d 414, this court reversed the dismissal of a complaint which alleged that a builder had created an inherently dangerous condition by failing to attach or...