Mauldin v. Sheffer
150 S.E.2d 150, 1966 Ga. App. LEXIS 1240, 113 Ga. App. 874 (1966)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A professional's negligent performance of contractual duties constitutes a tort because it is a breach of a duty of care imposed by law, separate and distinct from the duty imposed by the contract itself.
Facts:
- L. Miles Sheffer, a licensed architect, entered into an oral contract with John G. Mauldin, a registered professional mechanical engineer.
- Under the contract, Mauldin agreed to provide engineering designs, plans, and specifications for Sheffer's architectural work on additions to five school buildings.
- In exchange for his services, Sheffer agreed to pay Mauldin $200 per week, and did so.
- Mauldin produced and delivered engineering plans that Sheffer incorporated into his overall architectural plans and submitted to his clients, various school boards.
- The plans provided by Mauldin were found to be in numerous respects erroneous, incorrect, and contrary to generally accepted engineering standards, violating fundamental laws of physics and state regulations.
- As a result of the deficient plans, the State School Building Authority repeatedly rejected the projects and recalled them for correction.
- Sheffer incurred significant expenses hiring other engineers to completely redesign the work Mauldin was hired to perform.
- Sheffer also lost a contract for future architectural services with one of the school boards due to the problems caused by Mauldin's engineering errors.
Procedural Posture:
- L. Miles Sheffer sued John G. Mauldin for damages in a trial court.
- After Mauldin filed a demurrer (motion to dismiss), Sheffer amended his petition and then filed a completely redrafted petition.
- In court, Sheffer's counsel elected to proceed in tort (ex delicto) rather than for breach of contract (ex contractu).
- Mauldin filed general and special demurrers to the redrafted petition, arguing it failed to state a valid cause of action.
- The trial court overruled Mauldin's general demurrer.
- Mauldin (appellant) appealed the trial court's ruling to the Court of Appeals of Georgia, with Sheffer as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a professional's negligent performance of duties under a contract, which breaches a legal duty to exercise reasonable skill and care, give rise to a cause of action in tort (ex delicto)?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Frankum
Yes, a professional's negligent performance of contractual duties can give rise to a cause of action in tort. The court reasoned that while a mere failure to perform a contract (nonfeasance) typically only supports a contract claim, the negligent performance of a contract (misfeasance) can support a tort claim. This is because professionals like engineers, architects, and doctors have a duty imposed by law, independent of any contract, to exercise a reasonable degree of care, skill, and ability. A breach of this professional duty is a tort, and the contract's role is simply to establish the relationship that gives rise to this duty. Therefore, Sheffer's petition sufficiently alleged a breach of a legal duty, stating a valid cause of action in tort.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the distinction between nonfeasance (failure to perform) and misfeasance (negligent performance) in the context of torts arising from contracts. It solidifies the principle that professionals are subject to a standard of care imposed by law, not just by their contracts. The decision reinforces that professional malpractice is a tort, allowing plaintiffs to seek damages beyond what a simple breach of contract claim might permit, such as punitive damages for willful or wanton conduct. This precedent strengthens the legal accountability of professionals for the quality of their work.
