In Bonilla v. Verges Rome Architects, 382 So. 3d 62 (La. 2024), the Louisiana Supreme Court held in no uncertain terms that an architect does not bear a duty – whether in contract or tort – to safeguard worker safety unless such a duty is expressly set forth in the Architect’s contract.

The case arose during demolition of a public-project site in New Orleans. Gustavo Bonilla, a demolition worker, was seriously injured when a vault ceiling collapsed during demolition, causing him severe neck and back injuries. Mr. Bonilla sued Verges Rome Architects (“VRA”) and its engineering consultant, claiming negligence in design specifications that resulted in a lack of structural support during demolition, and failure to supervise worksite safety.

While the trial court granted summary judgment for VRA, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal reversed, reasoning that VRA’s contractual obligation to conduct weekly site visits and report deviations might create a duty to ensure safety during the project. The Supreme Court of Louisiana disagreed and found the contract language was clear and unambiguous. The periodic observations were not meant to transform VRA into a construction supervisor and the contract expressly disclaimed any responsibility for construction means and methods, which were duties allocated entirely to the contractor.

In reversing the Appellate Court, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that a design professional’s duty to third parties, such as employees of subcontractors, is derived solely from the express terms of the Architect’s contract. In this case, the contract stated that site visits “shall not be construed as supervision” and affirmed the contractor’s sole responsibility for means and methods of construction. The Court refused to broaden the Architect’s role just because it provided contract administration services.

For architects and engineers, Bonilla underscores that while site observations may be contractually mandated, they do not translate into broader tort liability. Contractors remain responsible for workplace safety unless the Architect’s contract says otherwise. This serves as a powerful incentive to draft agreements with utmost clarity, both in affirming that safety remains the contractor’s domain and in defining the scope and limits of the Architect’s professional duty.