EDITOR'S NOTES | Issue 3-26
publication date: Jun 26, 2005
This week’s set of cases is a humbling reminder that minimum requirements are rarely in the contractor’s best interests. In the first case, the court faults a contractor for not putting in the necessary effort for pre-bid site investigations. The contractor’s case lacked the backbone it needed to win its differing site conditions lawsuit. Second, a manufacturer’s conspicuously placed warning labels on its forklifts weren’t what caused it to lose a liability case—it was its owner’s manual that contradicted those stickers. Third, if you think a public project is safe from trespassers without a warrant, remember that trespassers don’t include OSHA officials conducting impromptu site investigations. And finally, don’t tick off a judge, as one contractor did, by repeatedly trying to argue an appeal that’s not part of the actual motion on trial.
This page is available to members only.
To subscribe, click
here
Construction Claims Online Features and Benefits
Whether your role in the construction claims process is as a building owner, designer, contractor, facility manager, attorney or consultant, you will want to keep up with the latest developments in construction law, federal and state policy, construction process and best practices.
Whether you sign up for our free or paid content, Construction Claims Online provides information you need to achieve successful outcomes for project issues and your clients' best interests.
Avoid costly errors by understanding how the boards and courts look at typical disputes situations.
Achieve successful project outcomes.
Defend against unsubstantiated claims.
Reduce or eliminate risks.
