After city dismissed its negligence claims against architect, architect amended its answer to file negligence counterclaims against city and other individuals.
Following a bench trial, the Circuit Court awarded architect $210,000 in damages. City appealed.
The Supreme Court held that city did not owe a duty of care in tort to architect, that was breached by city’s failure to directly inform the trial court, after city had informed its attorney and attorney failed to inform the trial court, that potential juror was the son of city councilman.
City did not owe a duty of care in tort to architect, who had filed negligence lawsuit against city, that was breached by city’s failure to directly inform the trial court, after city had informed its attorney and attorney failed to inform the trial court, that potential juror was the son of city councilman; caselaw indicated that tort lawsuits were not permitted for most litigation-related behavior as there were other mechanisms for enforcing rules and codes of conduct in litigation, and trials and voir dire were adversarial processes, with juror’s juror information card being available to both parties.