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
Defendant
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
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390