I believe the video titled “Understanding the Standard of Care” is somewhat incorrect in its audio description of the Spearin Doctrine at (3:48) and the Spearin Gap at (4:34).
At (3:48), it explains that U.S. v. Spearin was predicated on the fact that “the sewer failed due to extraordinary weather conditions.” If you read the supreme court opinion on the case, while it is true that “a sudden and heavy downpour of rain coincident with a high tide” was the driving action for the sewer failure, the more relevant point of the ruling was that “Upon investigation, it was discovered that there was a dam… not shown either on the city’s plan, nor on the government’s plans and blueprints, which were submitted to Spearin” that “had caused the internal pressure which broke it.” Essentially, there was a concealed / unverified field condition not properly accounted for in the plans and specifications prepared by the owner and the Supreme Court ruled that a contractor shall be given an implied warranty of adequacy when constructing from such documents.
This subtlety is further echoed at (4:34) when the video states “The [Spearin] Gap occurs when something goes wrong on a construction project that is above and beyond the architect’s standard of care – such as unprecedented weather taking out a properly designed storm sewer.” This example speaks to a design’s underperformance falling within an architect’s standard of care (i.e. only being required to design to withstand a certain intensity of weather).
However, the Spearin case had less to do with extraordinary circumstances with a project’s design and more to do with extraordinary circumstances with the preparation of and reliance on the contract documents. I think a better example of the Spearin Gap would be something like drawing a manhole cover in a somewhat confined space and noting “custom safety harness system by others” adjacent to it. Then when it comes time for the contractor to sub out the fabrication / installation of the harness system, if the prevailing feedback were that the space is too confined for what’s being asked for, the owner could be stuck with the liability of that incompatible element of the design if it were determined that the architect developed the drawings within the applicable standard of care and yet the contractor still has an implied warranty to rely on the drawings saying that a harness system can be constructed over a manhole access at “this” particular location.
I welcome any dissenting or contributing input to this understanding of the topics.
Source: United States v. Spearin | 248 U.S. 132 (1918) | Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center