Lawyers: Why did my friend lose an easy case?
 

I was the civil engineer on a house project, in which the builder lost money when he sold the house. The builder sued the architect for the money lost, blaming poor design.

I was amazed that the architect was even being sued in the first place, as there was nothing wrong with the design. The builder lost money because he built too nice a house for the neighborhood, and then, of course, real estate prices plummeted. This is in the Bay Area. It was the builder who guided the architect on what he wanted, so the over-design was not the fault of the architect.

Long story short, I thought the builder had no case whatsoever. I testified for hours, and still had the feeling that this was a ridiculous case. But, alas, the buildier won, and is now owed $210K.

So how could this happen? How could the judge come up with such an unfair verdict?

Justice in this country is served about as often as a broken clock is right and also rarely for the right reasons.

Well you have lost your case here,

Since you have failed to define why you should have won the case...

Even though you testified for hours.... your input was apparently ignored..

The other side made a better impression on the Judge?

Hopefully he has Errors and Omissions insurance and is covered, or he appeals, or he takes the hit.....

Did you say Bay Area ???

I thought there was a case in CA about 10 yrs. ago where a builder refused to sell to a lawyer, figuring he'd be a PITA about everything. As expected, the lawyer sued the builder for discrimination. But he lost because (at that time, at least) lawyers were not a protected class. The law has probably changed since then. I think anything is possible in CA, but judges usually make the law there as they go along.

State?

In CA you say?

The judge probably "felt" that the architect could afford to pony up the debt.

Other than that, civil matters have no moral compass.

Because the builder had a better lawyer.

Justice is fickle.

Cold be any one of a dozen reasons. Here are my top four.

Builder had a better case.
Builder had a better lawyer.
Architect's attorney pissed off the judge.
Builder's attorney was a friend of the judge.

Yup. The judicial system in the US is one of the most capricious in the world. There are few places I would be less inclined to litigate. A complete crapshoot.

The Architect should not have shown up in court wearing a McCain Palin Campaign Button and should have shown up with long scraggly hair, sandals, an Obama Yes We Can button, and with a joint hanging from his lip...all the while mumbling, "Hey man I'm an artist, and I do what artists do, like you dig man!"

San Francisco Bay Area.

BTW, the builder's attorney pissed off the judge repeatedly. And he asked me questions that he undoubtedly thought would be perfect "gotcha" questions, but I shot him down every time. In fact, I could see his face turn red and he looked like he wanted to just slink away a few times. Afterwards, our lawyer and I just sort of chuckled, it went so poorly for them.

Maybe the architect really screwed up when he spoke. It was a deposition, so I was only in the chambers when I testified.

No offense, but if you didn't sit thru the WHOLE trial, no one can answer your question. Cases are never just one witness. Maybe the builders expert was even more brilliant than you.

As stated above the arch should have liability insurance covering $1 million (req. in FL). The only affect he should feel is a rate hike.

That's just it. No one's more brilliant than me.;) But, yes, maybe the question should be, "What the hell did the architect say on the stand?"

liability insurance would only cover errors or omissions by the architect if he made an actual flaw in the design, it wouldn't cover if the house didn't sell for what the builder wanted, that's the risk of building spec.
I can't believe the architect lost that case.
I'm calling my E&O carrier today to see what coverage i have

Bet its the last one! "Friend of the Judge" Speaking from experience here.