In Georgetown Steel, the court explained that "a party that undertakes to perform a contract assumes a duty of due care to foreseeably affected third parties.
Summary of this case from Ross Dress for Less, Inc. v. Lauth Constr. Grp., LLCNo. 92-2588.
September 14, 1993.
Appeal from the D.S.C.; 806 F.Supp. 74.
REVERSED.
In Georgetown Steel, the court explained that "a party that undertakes to perform a contract assumes a duty of due care to foreseeably affected third parties.
Summary of this case from Ross Dress for Less, Inc. v. Lauth Constr. Grp., LLCFull title:Georgetown Steel Corp. v. Law Engineering Testing Co
Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Date published: Sep 14, 1993
Dkt. No. 140 at 9. Plaintiff relies on five cases to establish a duty running from MacTec to Plaintiff based…
Kocinec v. Public Storage, Inc." Def.'s Reply Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ J. 4. Such a distinction, between terms that limit recovery and terms…