This relatively straightforward dispute arising from the development of a
subdivision is a reminder of the significant role experts and the common knowledge
exception have in claims involving design professionals. See Cranes Creek, LLC v.
Neal Smith Eng'g, Inc., 291 N.C. App. 532 (2023).
Facts of the Case
In the Cranes Creek lawsuit, a
developer planned to purchase land in North Carolina to develop into a residential
development. As part of its due diligence, the developer asked an engineer, who had
been engaged to perform other work, to opine about water flow to a fire hydrant. The
engineer responded with a somewhat qualified answer, saying that the minimum "fire
flow" to a preexisting fire hydrant met "minimum fire flow requirements."
After purchasing the property, the developer learned that
additional water lines would need to be installed to satisfy "minimum flow
requirements for fire suppression." To recover the additional costs, the developer
filed suit against the engineer, alleging four different theories of
recovery—negligence, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, and breach of
implied warranties—though eventually the claims were reduced to only negligence and
negligent misrepresentation.
The developer had two experts testify against the defendant (the
engineer); however, neither said the defendant's services violated the acceptable
standard of care.
Eventually, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which is appropriate
where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact such that a party is
entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. The trial court granted the motion for
summary judgment.
The Court's Analysis
To succeed in pursuing its claims, the North Carolina Court of
Appeals noted that the developer must establish the standard of conduct or care
through expert testimony. The expert assists the jury in discerning whether the
defendant's professional performance or conduct did not conform to the standard of
care and, as a result, was in breach of that duty and the proximate cause of the
claimed damages.
The exception to the need for expert testimony is the common
knowledge exception. The court noted that this exception applies if "the common
knowledge and experience of the jury is sufficient to evaluate the defendant's
compliance with the standard." However, where the common knowledge exception does
not apply, and the plaintiff fails to establish the professional standard of care
through expert testimony, there may be no negligence proven.
The North Carolina Court of Appeals held that this dispute did not
fall within the common knowledge exception. Absent viable expert testimony, the
developer's claims failed.
Lessons Learned
An important takeaway from this opinion is that parties, like our
developer here, must realistically evaluate and understand the professional advice
received. If advice is qualified or conditional, the appropriate course is to seek
further clarification or additional opinions as necessary.
If you find yourself in a professional liability claim, especially
one involving technical expertise, like the design professions here, the outcome
often hinges on expert testimony. All parties must be prepared with qualified
experts. Courts will not let cases proceed to trial if there is no expert evidence
of negligence, except in the rarest of cases where the issue is within common
knowledge exception.
Experts are critical to establishing the standard of care.
However, not just any expert will do. The expert must clearly articulate the
opinions to be offered in support of the plaintiff or the defendant. Though the
"common knowledge exception" is a viable theory, it is rarely successful in
technical cases.
Opinions expressed in Expert Commentary articles are those of the author and are not necessarily held by the author's employer or IRMI. Expert Commentary articles and other IRMI Online content do not purport to provide legal, accounting, or other professional advice or opinion. If such advice is needed, consult with your attorney, accountant, or other qualified adviser.
This relatively straightforward dispute arising from the development of a subdivision is a reminder of the significant role experts and the common knowledge exception have in claims involving design professionals. See Cranes Creek, LLC v. Neal Smith Eng'g, Inc., 291 N.C. App. 532 (2023).
Facts of the Case
In the Cranes Creek lawsuit, a developer planned to purchase land in North Carolina to develop into a residential development. As part of its due diligence, the developer asked an engineer, who had been engaged to perform other work, to opine about water flow to a fire hydrant. The engineer responded with a somewhat qualified answer, saying that the minimum "fire flow" to a preexisting fire hydrant met "minimum fire flow requirements."
After purchasing the property, the developer learned that additional water lines would need to be installed to satisfy "minimum flow requirements for fire suppression." To recover the additional costs, the developer filed suit against the engineer, alleging four different theories of recovery—negligence, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, and breach of implied warranties—though eventually the claims were reduced to only negligence and negligent misrepresentation.
The developer had two experts testify against the defendant (the engineer); however, neither said the defendant's services violated the acceptable standard of care.
Eventually, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which is appropriate where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact such that a party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment.
The Court's Analysis
To succeed in pursuing its claims, the North Carolina Court of Appeals noted that the developer must establish the standard of conduct or care through expert testimony. The expert assists the jury in discerning whether the defendant's professional performance or conduct did not conform to the standard of care and, as a result, was in breach of that duty and the proximate cause of the claimed damages.
The exception to the need for expert testimony is the common knowledge exception. The court noted that this exception applies if "the common knowledge and experience of the jury is sufficient to evaluate the defendant's compliance with the standard." However, where the common knowledge exception does not apply, and the plaintiff fails to establish the professional standard of care through expert testimony, there may be no negligence proven.
The North Carolina Court of Appeals held that this dispute did not fall within the common knowledge exception. Absent viable expert testimony, the developer's claims failed.
Lessons Learned
An important takeaway from this opinion is that parties, like our developer here, must realistically evaluate and understand the professional advice received. If advice is qualified or conditional, the appropriate course is to seek further clarification or additional opinions as necessary.
If you find yourself in a professional liability claim, especially one involving technical expertise, like the design professions here, the outcome often hinges on expert testimony. All parties must be prepared with qualified experts. Courts will not let cases proceed to trial if there is no expert evidence of negligence, except in the rarest of cases where the issue is within common knowledge exception.
Experts are critical to establishing the standard of care. However, not just any expert will do. The expert must clearly articulate the opinions to be offered in support of the plaintiff or the defendant. Though the "common knowledge exception" is a viable theory, it is rarely successful in technical cases.
Opinions expressed in Expert Commentary articles are those of the author and are not necessarily held by the author's employer or IRMI. Expert Commentary articles and other IRMI Online content do not purport to provide legal, accounting, or other professional advice or opinion. If such advice is needed, consult with your attorney, accountant, or other qualified adviser.