Miller v.

DeWitt
Supreme Court of Illinois, 1967
Justice Underwood:

Facts: In 1959, Maroa Community Unit School District No. 2 decided to remodel and enlarge the gymnasium at its high
school and contracted with an architecture firm, DeWitt-Andel & Associates, who would act as the defendant in this case.
The architects prepared the plans and specifications, and the job was put out to bid. The job was awarded to Fisher-Stoune,
Inc., the contractor and employer of the three plaintiffs, Harold Miller, Ellis Furry, and Donald Engel. The plans called for
the removal of the west wall of the gymnasium, removal of a truss, removal of two steel columns, and the substitution of a
truss. In April of 1960, Byron Beals, superintendent for the contractor, decided to shore up the west-ends of the east-west
trusses by using tubular steel scaffolding. On May 3, 1960, the Fisher-Stoune crew erected two steel columns and
disconnected the necessary trusses as planned. The crew then began removing columns. Plaintiff Miller was cutting the
bottom of a column, plaintiff Furry was knocking bolts out of trusses at the top, and plaintiff Engel was standing on the roof
watching. When Furry knocked out the last bolt, the roof collapsed, and all three were injured. The Circuit Court in Macon
County entered judgement against the architects and for the school district and contractor. The architects appealed.

Issue 1: Did the architects negligently and carelessly fail to provide adequate support for the roof prior to and at the time of
the accident?

Issue 2: Did the architects negligently and carelessly fail to calculate a sufficient safety factor to be used in scaffolding?

Issue 3: Did the architects negligently and carelessly fail to oversee and inspect the scaffolding to determine safety?

Issue 4: Did the architects negligently and carelessly fail to apply the degree of skill which would reasonably be expected
professionals in that role to possess?

Holding 1: Yes

Holding 2: Yes

Holding 3: Yes

Holding 4: Yes

Rationale 1: The architects did not prepare detailed specifications for the temporary shoring of the gymnasium roof, nor did
they compute on the plans the load that would be placed upon the shores. Although the architects did not have the duty to
specify the method the contractor should use for shoring, the architects nonetheless failed to provide adequate support for
the roof in their design.

Rationale 2: Similar to Issue 1, the safety factor was a component that should have been present in the plans and thus
provided to the contractor, but was not.

Rationale 3: The architects had the right and duty to interfere and even stop the work if the contractor began to shore in an
unsafe and hazardous manner. However, the architects negligently failed to oversee, inspect, and rectify the hazardous
conditions that led to the (foreseeable) injuries of the plaintiffs.

Rationale 4: The architects should have known as experienced professionals that the architects knew or should have known
that the shoring was inadequate and unsafe. The level of reasonable care and skill of others in that profession indicate that
the architects carelessly and negligently failed to act in this situation.