Krestow v. Wooster
| Decision Date | 13 June 1978 |
| Docket Number | 77-145,Nos. 77-144,s. 77-144 |
| Citation | 360 So.2d 32 |
| Parties | Victor P. KRESTOW, Appellant, v. Shirley O. WOOSTER, Jr., et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Weinstein & Bavly and Arthur J. Morburger, Miami, for appellant.
Knight, Peters, Pickle, Niemoeller & Flynn, Jeanne Heyward, Miami, for appellees.
Before HUBBART and KEHOE, JJ., and CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge.
The plaintiff Victor P. Krestow appeals from a final judgment entered upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendants Shirley O. 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 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. There can be no action against the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Greenhaven Corp. v. Hutchcraft & Associates, Inc.
...duty to draw plans and specifications that conform to building codes, zoning codes and other local ordinances. Krestow v. Wooster, (1978) Fla.App., 360 So.2d 32. However, it is also generally held that an architect's duties to his employer depend upon the agreement he has entered into with ......
-
Puder v. Raymond Intern. Builders, Inc.
...(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......
-
Sch. Bd. of Broward Cnty. v. Alexander
...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. B......
-
Sch. Bd. of Broward Cnty. v. Pierce Goodwin Alexander & Linville
...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.......