Juan S. Lemon
Ethics Final
ISSUE
The issue at hand in the case Beacon Residential Community Association v. Skidmore,
Owings & Merrill LLP, et al is if architects owe a duty of care when designing a residential
project to the future homeowners. In this case, the project was The Beacon residential
development in San Francisco, California and it was plagued with design defects that affected
the future owners. The homeowner’s association of The Beacon sued several parties regarding
these defects, including the architects of the development.
REASONING
The Supreme Court of California affirmed the Court of Appeal’s ruling that a principal
architect can owe a duty of care to future homeowners. This duty of care can now extend to
architects even when the future homeowners do not directly contract them, perform the
construction of the project, or have any final say over construction. Prior to this, the only duty of
care architects owed was to their clients. The Court of Appeal also concluded that the Right to
Repair Act expressed a legislative intent to impose on design professionals a duty of care to
future homeowners.
The trial court initially ruled in favor of the defendants. An appeals court reversed that
ruling and applying the general negligence theory, most evident in the language used when
asserting that architects have a duty of care to homeowners and future third-parties. The court
applied the factors established in Biakanja v. Irving (1958) 49 Cal.2d 647 to help determine
whether a party owes a duty of care, in this case, a duty of care to the Homeowner’s Association.
ANALYSIS
In Biakanja, the Court permitted the intended beneficiary under a will to recover damages
from a notary public who failed to have the will properly attested. The court concluded that the
notary owed a duty to a beneficiary not to mishandle the will’s drafting and finalization. The
