This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Construction
Construction Defect
Geotechnical Engineering

Armond Avakian v. Garcrest Engineering and Construction Inc., Armen Gaprelian

Published: Oct. 30, 2010 | Result Date: Aug. 11, 2010 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: EC047436 Verdict –  Defense

Court

L.A. Superior Glendale


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Levik Yarian


Defendant

Joe A. Bollert

Brian K. Stewart
(Collins, Collins, Muir & Stewart LLP)


Experts

Plaintiff

Vahe Benlian
(technical)

Robert Hollingsworth
(technical)

Defendant

Robert W. Johnson CPA
(technical)

Mark Chapman
(technical)

Facts

In October 2006, plaintiff Armond Avakian hired defendants Garcrest Engineering and Construction Inc. and Armen Gaprelian as geotechnical engineers on a project, which entailed excavating a hillside and putting up a structural retaining wall to increase the space in Avakian's backyard. According to a soil report performed by Garcrest and Gaprelian, temporary shoring was not required within the span of construction.

On Oct. 20, the City of Glendale brought construction to a halt and asked that Avakian analyze the soil again to find out if shoring was required. Garcrest and Gaprelian informed Avakian that shoring was not needed.

On Oct. 26, part of the hillside caved in during construction. As a result, a worker was buried and others had to tunnel an air hole for him while the fire department shored the hillside and extracted the worker. There was a dispute as to whether there was a licensed contractor on the property.

Avakian filed an action against Garcrest and Gaprelian, alleging professional negligence.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff argued that the collapse happened because defendants did not recommend shoring. Plaintiff contended that defendants should have performed extra analysis of the soil.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendants argued that plaintiff acted as his own general contractor and that his inappropriate construction methods caused the soil collapse. Defendants further contended that plaintiff did not act on other suggestions contained in their soil report.

Settlement Discussions

Plaintiff demanded $100,000; the defense offered $7,485.

Damages

Plaintiff sought to recover $176,000, the difference between the cost of the original wall and the one required after the collapse.

Result

The jury found in favor of defendants.

Deliberation

1.5 hours

Poll

12-0

Length

four days


#100014

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390