Attorney successfully argued a motion for summary judgment in favor of our client, an architectural firm
Attorney successfully argued a motion for summary judgment in favor of our client, an architectural firm. Plaintiff alleged that our client's breach of the standard of care led to plaintiff's tripping and falling on a ramp at a construction site. Plaintiff's expert opinion made no mention of our client or our client's liability, but plaintiff and co-defendants vigorously argued that no expert testimony was required under a layman's exception, and that the contract between architect and owner provided a sufficient standard of care. Plaintiff and co-defendants further alleged material issues of fact, supported by deposition testimony, to preclude summary judgment by asserting that our client contributed to the improper construction of the ramp upon which plaintiff tripped, by incorrectly interpreting the engineering plans. The attorney argued, and the court agreed, that expert testimony against an architect was, in fact, required to establish a standard of care in this case, and that the layman's exception did not apply. As the required expert testimony was not provided, the claims against our client were dismissed with prejudice.