Case Study and Discussion Question PASTORELLI v. ASSOCIATED ENGINEERS, INC. United States District Court of Rhode Island, 1980 176 F. Supp. 150. DAY, DISTRICT JUDGE. In this action, the plaintiff seeks to recover damage for injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the three defendant corporations. The accident resulting in the injuries for which the plaintiff seeks damages occurred on November 10, 1975 upon the premises of the Narragansett Racing Association, Inc. (hereinafter called "the Racing Association") in Pawtucket, Rhode Island. On said date the plaintiff, an employee of the Racing Association, was lawfully upon said premises in a building familiarly known as the "clubhouse," and was engaged in the performance of his duties. While walking through said clubhouse, a heating duct suspended from the ceiling fell and struck him, causing the injuries for which he now seeks damages. The evidence establishes that early in 1974 the defendant Associated Engineers, Inc. (hereinafter called "Associated") contracted in writing with the Racing Association to prepare plans and specifications for the installation of certain heating, ventilating, and air conditioning systems on its premises (including said clubhouse). It also agreed to "supervise the contractors' work throughout the job." The defendant Procaccini and Moroney Plumbing and Heating Corp. (hereinafter called P&M) thereafter contracted with said Racing Association to erect and install said equipment; and Randall Sheet Metal Co. (hereinafter called Randall), as subcontractor, agreed with P&M to install certain heating ducts under the aforesaid contracts. Performance of the work required under said contracts was substantially completed and accepted by the owner on November 30, 1974; installation of the heating ducts in the clubhouse was completed by Randall and approved the Associated sometime in August 1974. It is undisputed that the duct that fell upon the plaintiff was installed by Randall. The duct that fell was approximately 20 feet long and weighed approximately 500 pounds. It was suspended from the ceiling of said clubhouse by the attachment of semi-rigid strips of metal, called hangers, to the sides of the duct, which hangers were then attached to the ceiling. This ceiling was of seven-eighths inch sheeting and was nailed to the joists of the building, leaving a considerable air space between such sheeting and the roof of the clubhouse. The duct was not in any way affixed directly to the roof itself or to the joists of the clubhouse. Considerable expert testimony was offered as to the quality of the ductwork performed by Randall. The specifications for the heating, ventilating, and air conditioning system prepared by Associated, and with which Randall agreed to comply, provided that "all sheet metal work shall be erected in a first class manner and workmanlike manner" and that "ducts shall be securely supported from the building constructed in an approved manner." The credible evidence satisfies me that the securing of a duct of the weight involved here to said ceiling by the means employed was not good practice nor in accordance with generally accepted practice, and that it was not installed in a first class or workmanlike manner.By the terms of its contract with the Racing Association, P&M was obligated to keep a "competent superintendent" on the job throughout the performance of the work called for by its contract so as to give "efficient supervision" thereto. It is clear that it did supervise the day-to-day performance of the work under its contract. Furthermore, it selected Randall to perform the sheet metal work required under its contract, made no objection to the manner in which said work was being performed, and approved it as having been completed in accordance with the contract. Pursuant to its agreement to "supervise the contractor's work throughout the job," Associated prepared and submitted periodic "inspection reports" to the Racing Association while the work was in progress. On November 30, 1974, Associated approved the invoices of P&M for the balance then payable under its contract less the sum of $400 for minor items to be completed thereafter, and certified that the "performance and execution of the contractor's work has been satisfactory." Its employee, the engineer who prepared these reports, testified that his employer assigned to him the task of supervising the installation of said systems, and that in pursuance of his duties he visited the job site on one, two, or three occasions each week to inspect the work of the contractor as it was being done. He also testified, however, that he never observed any of the ducts being hung from the ceiling in said clubhouse, stating that whenever he visited the clubhouse the ducts were either on the floor or already installed. He also admitted that he never climbed a ladder to determine how the hangers were suspended and whether the hangers were attached by nails or by lag screws and he never tested any of the hangers to see how securely they were attached. BASED ON THE ABOVE CASE STUDY, DISCUSS THE FOLLOWING: Based on the textbook, homework, and the discussions in class, who do you think would be held to be negligent in this case and why? Make sure that you discuss this thoroughly and include your reasoning