Absent fraud or extraordinary facts, “professionals are not liable in negligence to third parties with whom they are not in privity of contract.” John Day Co. v. Alvine & Assoc., Inc., 1 Neb.App. 954, 961, 510 N.W.2d 462, 466 (1993). There was a layer of subcontractors between Hawkins and GIE.

"[I]n Nebraska, absent proof of fraud or some other extraordinary facts that would override the general rule, professionals are not liable in negligence to third parties with whom they are not in privity of contract." John Day Co. v. Alvine & Associates, Inc., 510 N.W.2d 462, 466 (Neb.App. 1993). Robinson does not claim to be a "professional."

Id.John Day Co. v. Alvine Associates, Inc., 1 Neb. App. 954, 959, 510 N.W.2d 462, 465 (Neb.App. 1993). The Nebraska Court has also stated that "a contract made for the benefit of a third party with the third party's knowledge ordinarily cannot be changed without the third party's approval."

See, e.g., Jorgensen, 583 N.W.2d at 334 ("[W]hether or not [the defendant's] employees were professionals within the meaning of § 25-222 is an issue of law, not fact. A party cannot judicially admit conclusions of law in the pleadings-pleadings admit only facts"). But see John Day Co. v. Alvine Assocs., Inc., 510 N.W.2d 462, 466 (Neb. 1993) (considering the plaintiff's admission that the defendant was a professional in determining that a mechanical engineer provides professional services). Accordingly, while David Jisa may have referred to Ellis and Studer as "experts" and "professionals" in his deposition, these characterizations are not dispositive. Likewise, the fact that both Weich and Dorn consider themselves to be professionals is not dispositive.

In Nebraska, absent proof of fraud or some other extraordinary facts that would override the general rule, professionals are not liable in negligence to third parties with whom they are not in privity of contract. John Day Co. v. Alvine & Assocs., 1 Neb. App. 954, 510 N.W.2d 462 (1993). We have already determined that Kirkham Michael performed engineering services for SID 251 pursuant to a written contract and that the alleged oral contract between Standing Stone and Kirkham Michael was not supported by the evidence.

Its employees are required to have specialized qualifications and expertise. Service has the status of a trade and is required to exercise a specialized degree of care. See Ruddy v. Moore, 1997 WL 717790, at 8 (Del.Super.Ct.) (expert testimony presented concerning HVAC installation). John Day Co. v. Alvine Assoc., 510 N.W.2d 462, 466 (Neb.Ct.App. 1993) (professional standard applies to designing HVAC systems). Without expert testimony, jurors would be forced to surmise about the particular degree of skill and how to measure it against Service's functions under the circumstances of this case. Brandt argues that the mistake by Service was obvious and thus within the common knowledge of jurors to determine negligence.