Thomas v. Fromherz Engineers’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"As we view the matter, the primary object of this provision was to impose the duty or obligation on the architects to insure to the owner that before final acceptance of the work the building would be completed in accordance with the plans and specifications; and to insure this result the architects were to make `frequent visits to the work site' during the progress of the work. Under the contract they as architects had no duty to supervise the contractor's method of doing the work. In fact, as architects they had no power or control over the contractor's method of performing his contract, unless such power was provided for in the specifications. Their duty to the owner was to see that before final acceptance of the work the plans and specifications had been complied with, that proper materials had been used, and generally that the owner secured the building it had contracted for. Thus we do not think that under the contract in the instant case the architects were charged with the duty or obligation to inspect the methods employed by the contractor or the subcontractor in fulfilling the contract or the subcontract. Consequently we do not agree with the Court of Appeal that the architects had a duty to the deceased Day, an employee of Vince, to inspect the hot water system during its installation, or that they were charged with the duty of knowing that the boiler was being installed."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 172 Ind. App. 207 - Walters v. Kellam & Foley, Mussett, Nicholas & Stevenson, Inc. · 249 So. 2d 254 - Calandro Development, Inc. v. RM Butler Contr., Inc.

2. “adequate supervision of the execution of the work to reasonably insure strict conformity with the working drawings, specifications and other contract documents”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 249 So. 2d 254 - Calandro Development, Inc. v. RM Butler Contr., Inc.

3. “no apparent contractual or actual control.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Cook & Nichol, Inc. v. Plimsoll Club