The Slavin Doctrine

Trent Cotney, PA

It is not unusual for a roofer to be sued when someone is injured on a project, even if the injury occurs after the project has been accepted. Often, the injured person sues the roofer alleging that his/her injuries were caused by the roofer’s defective construction. Notwithstanding an injury, even if the construction was defective because it did not comply with the owner’s design, the roofer still may avoid liability. One method to avoid liability is application of the Slavin doctrine.

The Slavin doctrine holds that a contractor is not liable for personal injuries to third parties if the injuries were caused by patent defects and the owner has accepted the work. In other words, if the defective condition was obvious at the time the owner accepted the contractor’s work, the contractor will not be liable for damages resulting from the defective condition which occurred after the date of acceptance.

The Slavin doctrine emerged from the Florida Supreme Court case Slavin v. Kay, 108 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 1958). In Slavin, the plaintiff was injured in a motel as a result of a sink detaching from the bathroom wall and falling on the plaintiff . The plaintiff sued the motel owner and the contractor that installed the sink seeking compensation for the injuries the plaintiff suffered. Although the court recognized that a contractor may be relieved of liability for injuries to third parties occurring after the owner has accepted a project, the court also stated that the contractor would only be relieved of liability if the owner could have discovered and remedied the dangerous condition. In other words, the condition must be discoverable rather than latent for the contractor to avoid liability. The Slavin court found that the sink’s defective condition was hidden from ordinary observation and was therefore a latent defect, and held that the contractor could be held liable for the plaintiff ’s damages.

Several cases have expanded upon the original ruling in Slavin. In El Shorafa v. Ruprecht, 345 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), the court upheld the Slavin doctrine and recognized that under Slavin the contractor would not be liable if it was the property owner’s negligence in failing to correct the defect that actually caused the injury. The court held that if the owner could have corrected a defective condition that was known or reasonably would have been known after the owner accepted the project from the contractor, then the owner was the true cause of a third party’s injuries, and the contractor would not be liable.

In 1986, the Florida Supreme Court applied the Slavin doctrine in a case involving a paving contractor. Edward M. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Vaughn, 491 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 1986). In Chadbourne, the plaintiff was a passenger that was injured in an automobile accident. The plaintiff argued that his damages were the result of a two inch drop in the center of the pavement which caused the car accident. The plaintiff sued the paving contractor seeking compensation for his personal injuries and the wrongful death of his wife. The court
found that the Department of Transportation had accepted the work performed by the paving contractor and had examined and tested the contractor’s work extensively prior to the acceptance. The plaintiff attempted to equate the paving contractor to a manufacturer of a product, which would make the paving contractor strictly liable for all damages arising out of its work. The court declined to follow the plaintiff ’s reasoning because the contractor had installed as well as manufactured the pavement, and upheld
Slavin. The court ruled that because the Department of Transportation had accepted the work performed by the paving contractor and the Department of Transportation should have known about the alleged defect, the paving contractor could not be held liable for the damages sought by the plaintiff under any theory of liability.

Over the last 55 years, the Slavin doctrine has continued to protect roofers from liability for injuries caused to third parties as a result of an owner’s negligent maintenance of a project. Hopefully, none of our members will ever need the Slavin doctrine, but if your company is sued for personal injuries, the Slavin doctrine might save the day.

FRM

Author’s note: The information contained in this article is for general educational information only. This information does not constitute legal advice, is not intended to constitute legal advice, nor should it be relied upon as legal advice for your specific factual pattern or situation.

Trent Cotney is Florida Bar Certified in Construction Law, General Counsel and a director of the Florida Roofing and Sheet Metal Contractors Association (FRSA), a director of the West Coast Roofing Contractors Association (WCRCA), and a member of the National Roofing Contractors Association (NRCA), Midwest Roofing Contractors Association (MRCA) and several other FRSA affiliates.

For more information, contact the author at 813-579-3278 or go to www.trentcotney.com.