A tragic accident occurs when a motorcyclist collides with a car that he couldn’t see coming because of large plants at the intersection. It was a preventable accident but for the obstructing shrubbery. Is the contractor who planted the shrubs responsible? Not necessarily, not according to the accepted work doctrine.
Here’s why. Contractors, whose work has been approved and accepted, shall not be held liable to third parties for injuries suffered because of any dangerous condition related to the contractor’s work. In the example above, the City, which commissioned the work at the intersection, had actually specified the type and size of the plants to be used as well as where the plants were to be placed. The City then inspected the work and did so months before the accident. Having accepted the work that clearly included a dangerous condition, the City now had a duty to warn third parties or to correct the problem, and the contractor’s obligations was waived.
For the doctrine to apply, there has to be a clear acceptance by the owner, ideally preceded by an inspection. If on the other hand the dangerous condition is something not easily revealed or discoverable by prudent investigation, then reliance on the doctrine would be misplaced.
Known as the Slavin Doctrine in Florida, the accepted work concept has in fact been abolished by many states based on the belief that contractors actually bring a level of expertise and experience to any job and as such should be held responsible for any resulting injury. It clearly should be well understood and used by general contractors, subcontractors and design professionals where still the law.
The Slavin Doctrine is named after the case Slavin v. Kay, which was decided by the Florida Supreme Court in 1958. It is known in other jurisdictions as the Accepted Work Doctrine. States that recognize the Accepted Work Doctrine include California, Illinois and New York. Furthermore, this doctrine has even been expanded through its modern corollary, the “government contractor defense.” However, jurisdictions that continue to recognize the doctrine have adopted exceptions to the rule, including situations where:
- the defect is imminently dangerous to others;
- the defect is so hidden that a reasonably careful inspection would not reveal it;
- the contractor knows of the defect, but the owner does not;
- the plans and specifications are so obviously defective that no reasonable contractor would follow them; and
- the contractor’s negligence is not part of the contract work, but is instead a matter collateral to the contract work.
The doctrine has also been held not to apply where the contractor has a continuing duty of inspection and care.
