Don Siebarth Pontiac, Inc. v. Asphalt Road Building & Resurfacing, Inc.

3 Citing cases

  1. Hallar Enterprises, Inc. v. Hartman

    583 So. 2d 883 (La. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 12 times
    In Hallar, Hartman, a contractor, graded and shaped an existing road base and overlaid it with asphalt. He had concluded, based upon representations made by Hallar, the owner of the road, that the base was sufficient to support the additional asphalt.

    Although this article refers only to a "building," the jurisprudence had extended its application to include the surfacing of streets and parking lots with asphalt. Hanna-Abington Alexandria, Inc. v. Budd Construction Company, 487 So.2d 743 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1986); Don Siebarth Pontiac, Inc. v. Asphalt Road Building and Resurfacing, Inc., 407 So.2d 42 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1981); Town of Winnsboro v. Barnard Burk, Inc., 294 So.2d 867 (La.App. 2nd Cir.), writ denied, 295 So.2d 445 (La. 1974). With respect to defects in the soil, or as in this case a defect in the existing base of the road to be overlaid, article 2762 imposes liability upon a contractor only for building upon a site that he knew or should have known was defective.

  2. Tex-La Properties v. South State Ins. Co.

    514 So. 2d 707 (La. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 5 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Tex-La Properties v. South State Insurance Co., 514 So.2d 707 (La.App. 2nd Cir. 1987), this court held a subcontractor not liable pursuant to La.R.S. 9:2771.

    Stated another way, it is implicit in every building contract that the work will be performed in a good, workmanlike manner free from any defects in materials or workmanship. Don Siebarth Pontiac v. Asphalt Road Bldg., 407 So.2d 42, 45 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1981) See also LSA-C.C. Arts. 2762, 2769; Nichols Ford Company, Inc. v. Hughes, 292 So.2d 345 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1974); Wetmore v. Blueridge, Inc., 391 So.2d 951 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1980).

  3. Hanna-Abington Alexandria v. Budd

    487 So. 2d 743 (La. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 1 times
    In Hanna-Abington, the owner hired an engineer to test the sufficiency of the base prior to the contractor overlaying the lot with asphalt.

    Art. 2762. If a building, which an architect or other workman has undertaken to make by the job, should fall to ruin either in whole or in part, on account of the badness of the workmanship, the architect or undertaker shall bear the loss if the building falls to ruin in the course of ten years, if it be a stone or brick building, and of five years if it be built in wood or with frames filled with bricks. "Although Article 2762 refers only to a `building,' jurisprudence has extended its application to a swimming pool, Unverzagt v. Young Builders, Inc., 207 So.2d 405 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1967 [( 252 La. 1091), 215 So.2d 823 (La. 1968)]; an underground gasoline tank, Murphy Corporation v. Petrochem Maintenance, Inc., 180 So.2d 716 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1965 [writ denied ( 248 La. 910), 295 (182) So.2d 662 (La. 1966)], and street paving, Town of Winnsboro v. Barnard and Burk, Inc., 294 So.2d 867 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1974) [writ denied, 295 So.2d 445 (La. 1974)], and Don Seibarth [Siebarth] Pontiac v. Asphalt Road Building, 407 So.2d 42 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1981). Under these cases, Article 2762 clearly applies to the construction of an asphalt parking lot.