Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

ATHERTON CONDO APARTMENT-OWNERS ASS'N BD OF DIRECTORS v. Blume Dev. Co., 799 P.2d 250 (1990)

Citation
ATHERTON CONDO APARTMENT-OWNERS ASS'N BD OF DIRECTORS v. Blume Dev. Co., 799 P.2d 250 (1990)
Parent Document
ATHERTON CONDO APARTMENT-OWNERS ASS'N BD OF DIRECTORS v. Blume Dev. Co., 799 P.2d 250 (1990)
Jurisdiction
Washington (state)
Effective Date
1990-11-01

Other Sections in This Document (121)

Full Text

601 chars
Furthermore, the record indicates that Westlin's involvement with the Atherton project terminated at the point the building permits were issued. Westlin was not engaged to inspect, supervise, or monitor construction at Atherton. Accordingly, under the facts of this case, he has no liability for the alleged defects. See Goette v. Press Bar & Cafe, Inc., 413 N.W.2d 854 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987) (court affirmed a summary judgment in favor of architect when the failure occurred because the contractor deviated from the architect's drawings and the architect had no duty to supervise or inspect the work).