The Court of Appeal's judgment on liability of consulting engineer set aside

A private individual commissioned the construction of a residential building comprising four flats in Sandefjord. Upon completion, significant deficiencies in the fire safety measures were identified, to the extent that the building must be demolished and reconstructed. The case before the Supreme Court concerned a claim for damages brought by the employer against a company providing consulting engineering services. The company had carried out work for subcontractors but had no contractual relationship with the employer. The Supreme Court concluded that the Court of Appeal's judgment, which imposed liability for damages on the consulting engineer, had to be set aside.

It was undisputed that the contracts entered into by the employer were governed by the Housing Construction Act, which contains specific provisions regarding claims against earlier contractual parties. However, the Court of Appeal’s judgment was not based on the Act, but on general rules on non-contractual liability, which are largely unwritten in Norwegian law. 

In the Supreme Court's view, the Court of Appeal had misapplied these principles of liability. The Court noted that non-contractual liability in a case such as this requires a breach of a general standard of conduct. The basis for liability cannot be a breach of duties of care arising from contractual obligations.

Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeal must be set aside. Upon rehearing, the Court of Appeal must determine whether liability may be established on an alternative legal basis.

This judgment clarifies the conditions under which general principles of tort may be applied to losses that originate within contractual relationships.

Read the judgment from the Supreme Court (Norwegian only) (PDF)

Area of law: Erstatningsrett

Key paragraphs: 43–45, 54–56

Justices: Falkanger, Bergh, Thyness, Hellerslia, Stenvik