## Facts

- An architect was retained to provide architectural services for the design and construction of five school buildings for public authorities.
- The architect separately engaged a mechanical engineer to prepare mechanical engineering plans and specifications (including heating and plumbing) for the same projects.
- The engineer allegedly agreed to produce plans consistent with applicable engineering principles and governing rules and regulations for the school-building program.
- The submitted plans and specifications were allegedly rejected by relevant authorities as defective and nonconforming; some specifications allegedly “violated the laws of physics.”
- The architect alleged the engineer reused or adapted plans from unrelated projects that were unsuitable for the schools, constituting negligence and aggravated tortious conduct.
- The architect alleged resulting harm including: (1) added expense to hire another engineer to prepare acceptable plans, (2) project delays, and (3) loss of expected future school projects.
- The architect sought compensatory damages and punitive/exemplary damages.

## Issues

1. Whether the petition alleged a tort cause of action for professional negligence, rather than only a contract claim, arising from the engineer’s preparation of defective plans and specifications.
2. Whether the allegations of aggravated conduct were sufficient at the pleading stage to support a prayer for punitive/exemplary damages and withstand a general demurrer.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Georgia affirmed the trial court’s overruling of the engineer’s general demurrer.
- The petition sufficiently alleged negligent performance of professional engineering duties, which can support a tort claim even where the parties’ relationship arises from contract.
- The allegations, taken as true on demurrer, were sufficient to allow proof of aggravated misconduct and potential punitive/exemplary damages.
- Allegations of damages (replacement engineering costs, delay, and loss of future work) were sufficiently pleaded to survive dismissal; disputes over proof and certainty were for trial.

## Legal Principles

- A professional who undertakes specialized services owes a duty to exercise the care and skill ordinarily employed by members of the profession under similar circumstances.
- Negligent performance of contractual duties by a professional may give rise to liability in tort, not only breach of contract, when the pleadings allege negligent performance causing foreseeable harm.
- Punitive/exemplary damages may be recoverable where alleged facts, if proved, show aggravated or wilful misconduct, or an entire want of care raising an inference of conscious indifference to consequences.
- On a general demurrer, well-pleaded facts are taken as true, and dismissal is improper if the petition alleges facts that could entitle the plaintiff to relief.

## Conclusion

The court permitted the architect’s suit to proceed because the petition alleged more than mere nonperformance of a contract: it alleged professionally negligent and potentially aggravated engineering services causing identifiable losses, and those allegations were sufficient to support both compensatory and punitive-damages theories at the pleading stage.


Mauldin v. Sheffer, 150 S.E.2d 150 (Ga. Ct. App. 1966)