## Facts

- The State of Ohio retained Robert P. Madison International, Inc. as architect/engineer and construction manager for Ohio State University’s Prime Site Computer Building project.
- Madison retained Korda/Nemeth Engineering, Inc. as a structural engineering subconsultant; Peter Korda and David A. Holtzapple were Korda/Nemeth engineers.
- The construction contract documents allocated construction means, methods, and jobsite safety responsibilities to the contractor, not to Madison or Korda/Nemeth.
- On May 18, 1990, Holtzapple visited the site; plaintiffs alleged he observed ironworkers using an unsafe cantilevered-beam leveling procedure.
- On May 22, 1990, structural steel collapsed while workers were using the same procedure, killing the decedents.
- The decedents’ representatives filed wrongful-death negligence claims alleging Madison and Korda/Nemeth failed to prevent or stop the unsafe procedure and failed to use contractual authority to protect workers.

## Issues

1. Whether an architect/construction manager and a structural engineering consultant owed construction workers a tort or contractual duty to prevent or stop unsafe construction methods used by an independent contractor.
2. Whether periodic site-visit and observation obligations, and an engineer’s alleged on-site observation of unsafe practices, create a duty to intervene for worker safety.
3. Whether contractual rights to inspect, reject work, or suspend work constitute retained control sufficient to impose a duty for jobsite safety.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Madison, Korda/Nemeth, and individual engineers Korda and Holtzapple.
- The court held the defendants owed no duty to the decedents to control the contractor’s means and methods or to ensure jobsite safety under the contracts and Ohio law.
- Periodic site visits to assess general conformance with plans did not impose responsibility for day-to-day construction operations or safety precautions.
- Even assuming Holtzapple observed the allegedly unsafe procedure, that observation did not create legal control over the work sufficient to establish a duty to protect the contractor’s employees.
- Because the entity defendants owed no duty regarding means, methods, and safety, the individual engineers likewise owed no such duty absent independent conduct creating a separate duty.

## Legal Principles

- In Ohio, design professionals generally do not owe contractor employees a duty to ensure jobsite safety when the contracts assign safety and construction methods to the contractor.
- Contractual authority for general construction administration (e.g., inspection rights, reporting nonconforming work, rejecting work, or suspending work for noncompliance) is insufficient, without more, to establish retained control over the mode and manner of work.
- A contractual obligation to make periodic site visits to assess general conformance with design specifications does not, by itself, create a duty to supervise construction means and methods or to protect workers from unsafe practices of an independent contractor.
- Employees of a design professional are not liable for failure to provide jobsite safety where neither the employer nor the employees retained or exercised control over the manner of the contractor’s work.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed summary judgment because the architect/construction manager and structural engineers did not retain or exercise control over construction means, methods, or safety, and therefore owed no duty to intervene to stop unsafe procedures used by an independent contractor that led to the workers’ deaths.


Nicholson v. Turner/Cargile, 107 Ohio App. 3d 797, 669 N.E.2d 529 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1995)