 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
United Tel. Co. of Ohio v. Williams Excavating12/31/1997
that was incompatible with the construction methods utilized in the project, which caused the contractor to expend moneys for additional work to correct the later discovered problem with the flooring. The contractor then sued the architects for damage.
In defining and limiting liability in the area of economic loss, the court explained:
"The law of torts is well equipped to offer redress for losses suffered by reason of a `breach of some duty imposed by law to protect the broad interests of social policy.' (Citations omitted.) Tort law is not designed, however, to compensate parties for losses suffered as a result of a breach of duties assumed only by agreement. That type of compensation necessitates an analysis of the damages which were within the contemplation of the parties when framing their agreement. It remains the particular province of the law of contracts. * * *
"The controlling policy consideration underlying tort law is the safety of persons and property--the protection of persons and property from losses resulting from injury . The controlling policy consideration underlying the law of contracts is the protection of expectations bargained for. If that distinction is kept in mind, the damages claimed in a particular case may more readily be classified between claims for injuries to persons or property on the one hand and economic losses on the other.
"Therefore, applying [Section 552 of the Restatement of Torts, which describes the elements of negligent misrepresentation,] in this context will encompass liability that is otherwise best suited for contract negotiation and assignment." Floor Craft at 7, 560 N.E.2d at 211.
Moreover, the court reasoned that barring tort recovery when the losses are attributable to a contract is necessary "to hold parties to their contracts," despite the absence of privity between the contractor and the architects. Id, at 7, 560 N.E.2d at 211; See Foster Wheeler Enviresponse, Inc. v. Franklin Cty. Convention Facilities Auth. (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 353, 367, 678 N.E.2d 519, 530. Floor Craft specifically contracted with the hospital to hold it and not the architects liable for any economic damages arising from the architects' plans and specifications. Indeed, the court pronounced that absent privity of contract or a substitute therefor, no cause of action exists in tort to recover economic damages against design professionals involved in drafting plans and specifications. Floor Craft, 54 Ohio St.3d at 8, 560 N.E.2d 206.
With regard to privity, the Ohio Supreme Court has recently explained in Enviresponse, supra, at 365-366, 678 N.E.2d at 529:
"Privity, or its substitute, is not a tort; it serves only to identify an interest or establish a relationship necessary to allow for the bringing of a tort action for purely economic damages. Regardless of whether the threshold requirement for privity is met, or even justified, there can be no recovery where a necessary element to the tort itself is found to be missing."
Here, we are not faced with a situation where both tort and contract principles are invoked. Rather, Williams's claims against United Telephone are for recovery under one of the various tort theories stemming from United Telephone's failure to fully comply with the requirements of R.C. 153.64. In sum, the issue presented here is whether there exists a relationship between the parties to allow for the bringing of a tort action under any theory for purely economic damages. Thus, there is no need at this time for us to examine the various tort theories stemming from R.C. 153.64 submitted to the jury, since Williams can recover damages only once regardless of the number of th
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|