Ada St. M. E. Conditional Acceptance of Plans. stipulated; but, having begun operations, it could not claim to have abandoned the undertaking, so far as Bourdais was concerned. In another case, decided in Illinois, an architect submitted plans in competition for a church. They were accepted, on condition that they could be carried out for a certain sum. It was proved that they could not be carried out for that sum, and the church refused to pay the architect for his work. The architect brought suit, but he failed to show any promise to pay him for his plans, except the conditional one, and the court held that he was not entitled to recover anything. CHAPTER IV. THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ARCHITECT FOR HIS OWN WORK. WE E have seen that the present tendency is to separate the responsibility of the architect from that of the builder, making the former liable only for the consequences of what is shown to be lack of ordinary professional skill and care in preparing his plans and specifications, or in supervising the work under his charge. Within this limit, however, he is held to a strict accountability. The reports of French courts have contained, in past years, accounts of cases in which this accountability has been enforced with what seems cruel severity, and the modern French architects complain, apparently with reason, that architects are held responsible for mishaps which, if they were to occur in buildings constructed under the charge of engineers, would be looked upon as cases of force majeure, or as the result of an excusable oversight. One reason for this is that architects are nowhere, except, perhaps, in Germany, organized as closely in defence of their common interests as engineers, and the world is always disposed to crowd a little those who are too feeble to defend themselves. In this country, where the standard of practical knowledge in the profession is probably higher than in France, the dread of expert investigation into their work seems to be much less common among architects, but it is probable that there would not be much difference in the strictness with which they would be pursued for a real fault. In a California case, Moore & The Responsibility of the Architect, as Distinguished from that of the Builder. Boswell vs. Architect's Responsibility to the Public. Lottman vs. Barnett, 62 Mo. 159. Foss, a firm of architects, of reputed skill, contracted to build for Laird & Chambers a dam, to be 40 feet high, and to be capable of resisting all floods and freshets for two years after completion. Before the dam was fully completed, it was washed away, and the water destroyed a store, and other property, situated on the stream below. Suit for damages was brought against Laird & Chambers, the owners of the damIt was proved that they had not visited the dam from its commencement until after the break; that they had prescribed no plan, and furnished no materials, and had not received the work from the contractors. It was also proved that the plaintiff, Boswell, had been notified, fifteen hours before the dam gave way, of the anticipated danger, but had paid no attention. to the warning. The court held that Moore & Foss, the architects, or rather, in this case, the contractors, were responsible for the damage, and not Laird & Chambers. A case more in point is one decided in Missouri some years ago. A building was in process of erection under the "general charge and superintendence" of an architect. A part of the construction of the building consisted in a wall supported by iron tubular girders, resting on cast-iron columns, extending through two stories, with flanges cast on them at the level of first-story floor, to receive the ends of the first-floor girders. There was some evidence to show that the tubular girders were of light and cheap construction. Two of the columns settled, breaking the iron plates and bed-stones under them. The architect advised the owners to raise the columns that had settled, and to employ one Bashore to do the work. During a consultation between the architect and the owners on the subject, Shickle, a member of the firm which supplied the iron-work, learning that the architect proposed to put jack-screws under the flanges of the columns, at the first-floor level, advised him not to do so. The architect, however, apparently after consultation with Bashore, ordered them to be raised in that way. One column was thus successfully raised, but in raising the second, the cap, on which the second-story girders rested, broke off, letting the girder drop. There seems to have been no attempt to shore up the walls between the columns, and the dropping of the end injured the girder so much that it gave way, bringing down the wall that rested on it. A workman was killed by the falling masonry, and his widow sued the architect for five thousand dollars damages for the loss of her husband, alleging that the catastrophe was due to his negligence. There was evidence to show that it was doubtful whether the construction would have been permanently secure in any case, owing to the weakness of the girders and columns; and it was proved that the architect was absent at the time of the raising of the column. The defence rested on the ground that no negligence of the architect was shown, and that, in any case, he was only the agent of another person, and not himself responsible for any omission to do his whole duty. The jury found a verdict for the widow, in the full sum claimed; and the Supreme Court sustained the verdict, saying that an architect "having the general charge and superinten"dence of the construction of a building, was held to be re"sponsible for the killing of a workman caused by the falling "of a wall, which resulted from the giving way of supports on "which it rested, under the working of a jack-screw, although "the appliance was put to work under the immediate direction "of another person employed by the owner of the building, and "while the architect was absent, where it appeared that the "manager of the jack-screw was employed under the advice of "the architect, and subject to his direction, and that he knew "and approved of the method adopted for effecting the raising. "Whether the wall fell because the plan for raising it was "a bad one, or because the supports were inadequate, in either case the disaster was attributable to positive misfeasance for "negligence in a work which the architect undertook, but in "which he failed to exhibit the care and skill which the law "imposed upon him. For such negligence he was responsible, "not merely to his employer, but to those injured in conse 66 Raising Col umns. Lottman vs. Barnett, 62 Mo, 159. The Architect's Responsibility for the Correctness of his Certificates. Irving vs. Morrison, 27 C. P. (Upper Canada) 242. "quence, and the question whether, and in what respect, he 66 was guilty of negligence, was one for the jury, under appro"priate instructions. The doctrine that agents are not re"sponsible to third persons, for mere nonfeasance, has no appli"cation to such a case." A case of considerable importance, involving the responsibility of an architect for a certain part of his work, was decided in Canada a few years ago. It seems to be the only case, decided in a court of record, covering this particular point, so that it seems proper to refer to it, although it may be doubted whether it would be followed as a precedent by our courts. An architect named Irving was engaged to plan and superintend a house, to cost $25,000, and was to give certificates from time to time, for 85 per cent of the value of the work done. There were several contractors. One of the contractors failed At the time of his failure, while the work was going on. When the house was done, the owner refused to pay the architect, who sued him for $910, being a balance of $900 on his commission of 5 per cent, with $10 for advances for advertising. The court held that the architect's estimate of the amount due him was correct, but that the owner was entitled to deduct from this $655, being the difference between $2,950, the amount he had actually paid the defaulting contractor, and $2,295, the amount which ought to have been certified as due him. The case was appealed to the Court of Common Pleas, which confirmed the decision of the court below. There are some legal principles which modify the responsi bility of architects, as well as of all other persons under similar |