Page 1 of 1

Land Surveyor Liability

Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2018 9:31 pm
by mpallamary
"A man filed a negligence case against a land surveyor after he tripped and fell on a stake while on his own land. The stake had been placed there by a surveyor while he was performing a survey of the land. When the surveyor had surveyed the land, he marked the boundary of the property with wooden stakes tied with ribbons, which were driven into the ground. They were surrounded by grass but still visible. Shortly after the completion of the survey, the landowner was unloading some equipment into a storage building when he tripped on one of the survey stakes. He seriously injured his hip and then sued the land surveyor for negligence."

"The plaintiff did not present an expert witness to support his case. The surveyor argued that the plaintiff was required to show that his conduct fell below the standard of care in his placement and removal of the stakes. The plaintiff argued that placing stakes in a way in which they were not clearly visible was ordinary negligence, rather than professional negligence. He also argued that it was within the common knowledge of laypersons and that an expert was not required under the “common knowledge” exception. Under the common knowledge exception, a party can make out a case of professional negligence without expert testimony in cases in which the evidence and alleged negligent conduct is within the understanding of laypersons."

Re: Land Surveyor Liability

Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2018 7:36 am
by Peter Ehlert
interesting situation
"The district court recognized that under the “common
knowledge” exception, a party may make a prima facie case of
professional negligence even without expert testimony in cases
where the evidence and circumstances are such that recogni-
tion of the alleged negligence may be presumed to be within
the comprehension of laypersons. However, this common
knowledge exception is limited to cases of extreme and obvi-
ous misconduct. The district court determined that the excep-
tion did not apply in this case, due to the specialized nature
of the surveying work and because Dickinson’s conduct was
not extreme or obvious. The Bixenmanns appeal."
==
"CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the judgment of
the district court."