"I Just Walked Into Space": How Architects Approved a Code-Violating Curved Stair

This “classic” episode from our first season has been re-edited for the benefit of our newest listeners, as a way to keep these evergreen lessons alive, We hope you enjoy listening to this story as much as we do presenting it to you.

What happens when an elegant curved staircase turns into a painful trap for an 84-year-old grandmother simply trying to get home after a medical test?

In this episode you’ll discover how a dramatic architectural gesture, divided responsibilities, and overlooked Code details led to a fall that changed one woman’s life forever, and the hard lessons every architect must learn before someone else pays the price.

Connect with Pro-Demnity:

• Leave a Review     
• Follow us on LinkedIn
• Access our Risk Education Library
• Speak with a Risk Services Expert if you’re an Ontario architect seeking guidance for a risk management issue.

Thank you for listening.

Transcript

In this story, an elderly woman loses her footing and tumbles down some stairs at a shopping Centre. She sues the Architect of Record, but the Design Architect and the local Building Official are soon involved in the legal action. Each defendant insists upon their innocence and blames the other defendants, as well as the unfortunate, injured, 84-year-old plaintiff. With apologies to another octogenarian, Margaret Atwood, we call this story, “The Handrail’s Tale.”

Mrs. Gubbins needed to have some x-rays taken, so she had her son drop her off at the Mega-Mall, the large regional shopping centre, where the Cure-all Medical Clinic, had an office on the second floor. Following instructions, she had fasted for 24 hours and then consumed an uncomfortable quantity of barium.

Exiting the clinic a few hours later, Mrs. Gubbins was unsure of how to get to the elevator, so she made her way to the main staircase – an extravagant architectural creation, in the style of a hollywood musical. The stair, located near the main entry water fountain, featured three curved steps ascending to a curved landing. Going up the stairs was an theatrical experience. Going down the stairs was also dramatic, but trickier, since the handrails followed the sweep of the curved treads and plunged artistically away from the direction of travel, making them next to useless.

That morning, Mrs. Gubbins descended the staircase. When she reached those last three steps … with the main door directly ahead of her … she let go of the handrail and lurched forward. Lacking the necessary support, she missed her footing on the first curved tread, falling and sliding the rest of the way – badly fracturing her hip.

Her claim was modest. Mrs. Gubbins needed some financial help to look after physical needs. She did not include any amounts for “pain and suffering” in her claim, although she must have endured a considerable amount of both.

Mrs. Gubbins based her case on the fact that the carpet pattern was confusing, so it was hard to see the steps. In addition, someone from the clinic should have escorted her to the elevator and not left to her own devices. And, as noted, the handrail was out of reach.

As a result of her injury, Mrs. Gubbins was now wheelchair-bound, so she needed help getting around, and alterations to her home needed to be made. Furthermore, as she sadly confessed, her only interest left in life was playing the organ at her church … but that pleasure was gone. The organ loft was at the top of a winding staircase, and stairs of any kind were no longer an option for Mrs. Gubbins.

Her claim was for an extremely modest amount, even though she was living alone on an old age pension and could not afford home care or home alterations. Her chances of recovery were limited by her age, and she was facing the prospect of ending her days in a wheelchair.

In its own defence, the Clinic denied that there was anything improper in Mrs. Gubbins’s release. They felt that she was more than capable of getting home unaided.

The shopping centre claimed that the staircase had been used by thousands of people, young and old, and they could see nothing wrong with the bottom steps.

However, If the court should decide that there was something wrong with the stairs, it couldn’t be blamed on them. It would certainly be the fault of the Architects who designed them that way, and the building inspectors who approved them.

The Architect of Record said that they were contracted to do the working drawings, as well as performing contract administration and reviewing the work in progress. The staircase had been built according to the design drawings. The last three steps and the handrail details were based on instructions received directly from the Design Architect. Their claim that they were “just following orders” seemed reasonable since they were a small partnership of local folks, whereas the Design Architects were a well-known “big-city” firm. 

Furthermore, the Design Architects had reviewed the shop drawings … and the work on site, so they had ample opportunity to notice Code errors.

For their part, the Design Architects believed that “the law was on their side.” After all, Code matters were the responsibility of the Architect of Record. It was the local firm’s job, they believed, to review the design for Code conformity, and correct any violation on any document.

Also, their design was schematic. The stair had been illustrated only in a perspective drawing, and everyone knows that perspectives are not intended to be taken literally. Furthermore, there was nothing confusing about the carpet design and the handrail could have been held onto, even though it would have meant turning away from the direction of travel.

The building official pointed out that he was an official in a small town and could not be expected to second-guess big-city professionals. He had relied completely on the Architect’s drawings. 

As the matter proceeded, lawyers for both sides were settling in for the fight.

Sad to say, time was on the defendants’ side. Mrs. Gubbins could not afford a protracted legal battle. Her daughter, a schoolteacher, was paying the legal bills, and funds were limited. Her lawyer appealed for a settlement.

Pro-Demnity’s counsel presented the standard defences: Mrs. Gubbins was under the influence of medication, had bad eyesight, wore ill-fitting shoes, she was also not being careful, and so on. Furthermore, it had been her choice to take the long stairs down and reject the elevator, so it was contributory negligence, at the very least.

In circumstances such as these, Pro-Demnity finds this sort of defence quite distasteful, but there are legal imperatives to be observed, and architects have a right to a strong defense in accordance with their policy.

To us, it was beginning to look like, out of all the parties involved, and especially between our two policyholders, the Design Architects, might have had the least exposure. But the matter was at an impasse, and so the process dragged on through discoveries.

It should have been clear in the Discovery of Mrs. Gubbins that the Defendants were unlikely to win. The Plaintiff was a devastatingly honest and straightforward witness, whose most memorable statement was, “I don’t really remember, sir, whether it was curved or not, I just walked into space.” 

The lawyers, with their talk of ill-fitting shoes and their request that her feet be measured, were pathetic.

At the Discovery of the Design Architect, a shop drawing of the stair was produced, clearly illustrating the Code violations: the stair was too wide not to have a centre handrail. The Architect of Record had approved the drawing, as had the Design Architect, whose stamp was on the drawing. It was clear now that the “design only” Architects had not only seen the drawing, but had also approved it. They were caught “in the web.”

It also turned out that they had made site visits – indicating a much more hands-on role than they had at first admitted. The emergence of this fact was not due to intentional misdirection, but the result of one simple fact: Large firms tend to be compartmentalized, with one specialist team possibly, neglecting to share seemingly trivial details with other specialist teams, involved in the same project.

This discovery could have been minimized, to some extent – claiming for example that their involvement was “aesthetic” only, and merely a continuation of the design role, etc., etc. But at this point, Pro-Demnity decided that here was a case that needed some sense knocked into it.

To begin with, the staircase violated the Building Code. And Mega Mall had already installed a central balustrade. So any defence argument that the handrail was unnecessary, was a non-starter.

Second, any court would clearly sympathize with Mrs. Gubbins, an elderly grandmother, salt of the earth, not out to make a killing.

Third, whatever the Clinic officially said, it was wrong not to escort the older person to the elevator in the shaky condition.

Finally, it was not in anyone’s interest to try to bury the case in legal costs. The matter could be settled now for half the amount that legal fees would amount to if it went to trial.

In the end, all defendants were persuaded to contribute a modest sum. Mrs. Gubbins settled. Sadly, her legal fees swallowed half her settlement.

This was not a hugely complicated case, personal injury cases can so often involve millions of dollars being sought in compensation. There are lost wages and future earnings to consider, not to mention loss of enjoyment of life, pain and suffering and mental anguish. Then, there are the costs of surgical or medical treatment, physical rehabilitation, wellness therapy, home care and accessibility renovations. 

With this in mind, there are several valuable lessons to be learned from this story. 

Lesson 1: Architects may seek to limit their “scope of work” contractually, by undertaking discrete tasks and being paid accordingly. But their liability for the work may not be limited to the same extent. Partial services can often serve as an open invitation for claims that are based on areas not in the architect’s contracted scope.

Lesson 2: Remember that your duty of care extends to those who will ultimately make use of your buildings and spaces. The contractual relationship with your client will not be of the slightest interest to a third party. 

Lesson 3: Sometimes the human factor has more legal weight than any professional or contractual considerations. Being a professional means doing the right thing. In this case, that should have been clear to all parties, from the start. In the final analysis, it’s the architect’s actions, not the contract, that are the governing factor.

Lesson 4: When your work depends on work done in collaboration with another firm, do you due diligence on the work that they are presenting to you. Their missteps, however small, may become your responsibility.

Lesson 5: Always give serious consideration to spiking up your insurance limits, especially on projects where the scope size and risk factors warrant. Reach out to Pro-Demnity with any risk or liability questions you might have.