A common issue in Architect and Engineer cases is distinguishing between what are possible alternate designs and what are repairs to defective designs. Just because one architect or engineer would have handled a design challenge differently does not mean it was originally handled incorrectly. This distinction was recently addressed in North Carolina.

In Cranes Creek, LLC v. Neal Smith Engineering, Inc. the Court of Appeals of North Carolina addressed whether expert testimony identifying alternate ways the expert would have handled a problem was the equivalent of testimony that the original engineer breached the standard of care in the way it actually was handled. Mid-State Development, LLC (“Mid-State”) contracted with Neal Smith Engineering, Inc. (“Neal Smith”) for civil engineering services relating to a subdivision including design of the subdivision fire suppression systems. Several years later, Cranes Creek, LLC (“Cranes Creek”) purchased the subdivision from Mid-State and asked Neal Smith to confirm that waterflow tests evidenced “sufficient fire suppression” waterflow requirements existed, which it did. After purchase of the subdivision, Cranes Creek discovered waterflow did not meet the minimum requirements and repairs were needed.

Cranes Creek sued Neal Smith for negligent misrepresentation, negligence, breach of contract, and breach of implied warranties arguing Neal Smith breached its duty of care by failing to disclose the insufficiency of waterflow. Neal Smith filed a motion for summary judgment which the trial court granted. Cranes Creek appealed.

The Court first noted Cranes Creek’s claims for negligence and negligent misrepresentation were actually claims of professional negligence and Cranes Creek had the burden of showing: (1) the nature of Neal Smith’s profession, (2) Neal Smith’s duty to conform to certain standards of conduct, and (3) that a breach of duty proximately caused injury to Cranes Creek. The Court further held Cranes Creek must establish the standard of care and breach through expert testimony, unless the negligence was so gross, common knowledge is sufficient to determine whether the standard was met.

Cranes Creek disclosed three (3) expert witnesses. However, none of the experts testified Neal Smith breached the standard of care. Instead, the experts identified only unique problems posed by the Project and testified they would have addressed the issues differently.  None could say definitively, however, that the work of Neal Smith fell below the standard of care.  The Court found the trial court did not err in granting Neal Smith’s motion for summary judgment because Crane Creek’s experts failed to offer testimony that the professional standard of care for engineers was breached.