“Building” a Better Plan for Design Professional Expert Witnesses: Theater Patrons Trapped in Elevators After Architect’s Failure

Authors: Scott Ruksakiati & Sam Manning, Esq.

Background

A contract dispute arose between the Chicago Shakespeare Theater (“theater”) and Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Architecture LLP (“architect”), the architectural firm retained to design the theater’s “The Yard” at Navy Pier. The architect sued the theater over unpaid fees. The theater counterclaimed, arguing the architect failed to meet professional standards, breaching the contract by not ensuring the elevators could handle the venue’s operational demands. [i]

The dispute centered around alleged project inadequacies, particularly the architect’s specification of limited-use elevators. According to the theater, these elevators did not meet their functional requirements, resulting in patrons being trapped in the elevators on The Yard’s opening night.

?

Procedural History

The architect moved for summary judgment on the theater’s counterclaim. The trial court granted the architect’s motion for summary judgment, ruling the theater had not proffered sufficient expert testimony to substantiate the breach of contract claim. The theater subsequently appealed, arguing their expert was competent to testify to the architect’s alleged breach of the standard of care without further expert support.[ii]

The appellate court affirmed the lower court’s decision, concluding the theater’s expert evidence was insufficient to refute the architect’s position on the standard of care.[iii]

?

Legal Analysis

The contract provided the architect would perform its services with “professional care.” It did not specify elevator types or set functional standards for the elevators.[iv] The lack of specificity in the contract became a central issue, as the theater argued the architect breached its professional duty by choosing “limited-use” elevators that did not meet the theater’s operational needs.[v]

The appellate court, referencing Thompson v. Gordon, highlighted the role of contract language in defining professional duties.[vi] In Thompson, the court found an engineer’s duty to modify a highway ramp could be limited by specific contract language, reinforcing the notion that contractual clarity reduces ambiguity as to professional obligations.[vii]

The theater further argued the architect’s selection of limited-use elevators demonstrated a failure to meet professional care standards. The court determined expert testimony was necessary to establish this claim.[viii] In Jones v. Chicago HMO Ltd., the Illinois Supreme Court held expert testimony is generally required to prove both the standard of care and a deviation therefrom in professional negligence cases.[ix]

Similarly, in Advincula v. United Blood Services, the Court mandated expert testimony, unless the deviation from standard practices is obvious to the layperson, which was not the case with the architect’s choice of limited-use elevators.[x] The theater’s expert failed to specifically address architectural standards of care, instead focusing on technical elevator standards. This left the theater’s claim unsupported by appropriate expert testimony.[xi]

The theater had the burden of proving the architect’s breach of the standard of care. Illinois courts, including the Court in Studt v. Sherman Health Systems, have interpreted this as requiring concrete, expert-supported evidence to substantiate claims.[xii] The Illinois Supreme Court in Studt emphasized expert testimony is necessary to determine whether a professional met the common standards of care within a specified field.[xiii]

The theater’s expert was unable to demonstrate AS+GG’s deviation from the architectural standard of care, focusing instead on installation issues and elevator functionality, without linking these issues to the architect’s professional obligations.[xiv] This disconnect left the Appellate Court no choice but to find the Theater’s claim insufficient to establish a prima facie case of negligence. [xv]

The appellate court recognized the issue regarding the architect’s standard of care was beyond the knowledge of a layperson and, therefore, required evidence from architectural professionals rather than general technical assessments.[xvi] The appellate court’s emphasis on the need for field-specific expert testimony serves as a reminder that claims involving specialized architectural decisions must be supported by experts who understand and can testify to the professional standards in that domain.[xvii]

?

Key Takeaway

The Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Architecture LLP v. Chicago Shakespeare Theater decision reinforces established Illinois law regarding negligence claims against design professionals and other professionals in general. Clear contracts, precise expert testimony, and well-supported evidence are essential to establishing a breach of a professional standard of care. Accordingly, when defending a design professional, be sure to retain the right expert who is competent and qualified to testify regarding the applicable standard of care and be prepared to develop an argument for summary judgment which emphasizes how the plaintiff has failed to retain a similarly qualified expert. This is exactly what Tyson & Mendes attorneys did in a recent Indiana case in which the trial court barred the plaintiffs’ standard of care expert and granted summary judgment (similar to Adrian Smith), which was eventually affirmed by the Indiana Supreme Court.[xviii]

Sources

[i] Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Architecture LLP v. Chicago Shakespeare Theater, 2024 IL App (1st) 230133.

[ii] Id.

[iii] Id.

[iv] Id.

[v] Id.

[vi] Id.

[vii] Id.

[viii] Id.

[ix] Jones v. Chicago HMO Ltd. of Illinois, 191 Ill.2d 278 (2000).

[x] Advincula v. United Blood Services, 176 Ill.2d 1 (1996)

[xi] Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Architecture LLP v. Chicago Shakespeare Theater, 2024 IL App (1st) 230133.

[xii] Studt v. Sherman Health Systems, 951 N.E.2d 1131 (2011)

[xiii] Id.

[xiv] Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Architecture LLP v. Chicago Shakespeare Theater, 2024 IL App (1st) 230133..

[xv] Id.

[xvi] Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Architecture LLP v. Chicago Shakespeare Theater, 2024 IL App (1st) 230133.

[xvii] Id.

[xviii] Pennington v. Memorial Hospital of South Bend, Inc. et al., 223 N.E.3d 1086 (Ind. 2024)

View this article on the Tyson & Mendes website here: https://www.tysonmendes.com/building-a-better-plan-for-design-professional-expert-witnesses-theater-patrons-trapped-in-elevators-after-architects-failure/

?

Looking to receive our newsletter to your email? Sign up here: https://www.tysonmendes.com/sign-up-for-updates/

?

Learn more about Scott Ruksakiati here: https://www.tysonmendes.com/attorneys/scott-ruksakiati/

Learn more about Sam Manning, Esq. here: https://www.tysonmendes.com/attorneys/sam-manning/