State Ready Mix Inc. V. Moffatt And Nichol - 2356 Words

Case #1: State Ready Mix Inc. v. Moffatt Nichol (2015) Cal. App. 4th Case Number: No. B253421. Second Dist., Div. Six. Jan. 8, 2015. Parties Involved: †¢ State Ready Mix, Inc: Appellant and Cross Complainant †¢ Moffatt Nichol: Respondent, Cross Defendant †¢ Vincent J. O’Neal: Judge Project Specifications: No specifications were given within the document. Date and Location of Case: †¢ Date: 01/08/2015 †¢ Location: California Court of Appeals, Second District, 6th Division Summary of Case: In 2012, a marine project manager called Bellingham Marine Inc. (â€Å"Bellingham†) hired Major Engineering Marine Inc. (â€Å"Major†) for a project to build a travel lift pier at a harbor. Bellingham then hired a civil engineering firm, Moffatt Nichol†¦show more content†¦The overdose of the chemical came about because of a calculation error. Major had to destroy and rebuild the pier and sued State for damages and State filed a cross-complaint alleging that Moffatt did not use reasonable care in the approval of the design. Three attempts at pleads were made and it was determined that Moffat was not in privity of contract with Major or State due to State being subjected to the economic loss rule. Court Decision: The court ruled that State could not sue for equitable indemnity or contribution based on the fact that there was no evidence that Moffatt owed a duty of care or that Moffatt was negligent. The court also determined that there was no contractual relationship between State and Major and that a person or other property was not damaged. Based on the two core findings, all cross complaints made by State are disregarded and State is found to be solely responsible for the damages. Moffatt is also awarded costs on the appeal. Further Actions: This case was the last appealed case of the series and therefore, no other actions followed. This is because the judge affirmed the case as â€Å"an order sustaining demurrer without leave to amend†. This statement means that the plaintiff cannot amend the complaint. Commentary: Opinion of Case The case seems to be strait forward with the fact that State is at fault for the