Tort; Negligence; breach of the duty of care; foreseeability of harm; reasonable person; relevance of defendant's special expertise.
Facts: A hall was built by the Inglewood Shire Council. This hall was designed by a properly qualified architect and built in accordance with his plans. A year later, a stage in the hall collapsed and several people, including Voli, were injured as a result. It turned out that the architect's plans provided for floor joists that were too narrow to comply with Inglewood Shire Council's by-laws, or with Australian Standards Association requirements. If the joists had been wide enough, the stage would not have collapsed. Voli sued the council, the architect and the builder.
Issue: What standard of care was owed to Voli by the architect?
Decision: On appeal, it was held that the architect owed a duty of care to the injured persons, and that the applicable standard of care is determined according to the competence and skill that is usual among architects practising their profession.
Reason: Windeyer J said (at [8]):
"An architect undertaking any work in the way of his profession accepts the ordinary liabilities of any man who follows a skilled calling. He is bound to exercise due care, skill and diligence. He is not required to have an extraordinary degree of skill or the highest professional attainments. But he must bring to the task he undertakes the competence and skill that is usual among architects practising their profession. And he must use due care. If he fails in these matters and the person who employed him thereby suffers damage, he is liable to that person. This liability can be said to arise either from a breach of his contract or in tort."