First Principles of Business Law

5. Breach of a duty of care

5.1.6. The relevance of a defendant's professional expertise

Read the following facts and then consider the arguments.

A is an engineer. She advises B that it would be safe to remove an interior wall in B's house. A has checked that the wall is not a load bearing wall but does no further inspections or tests. After B removes the wall, a strong wind shakes the house and this causes severe cracks. It turns out that the wall B removed was important in providing lateral support and rigidity. B sues A for damages, alleging that the risk of harm should have been foreseen by a professionally qualified engineer.

Issue: Is A's professional expertise relevant in determining whether the harm in question was foreseeable?

Click on the links below to read the arguments that might be made on this issue by each side.