'Torts Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) Practice Test 2026 – Your Comprehensive All-in-One Guide to Exam Success!'

The main idea is professional negligence by both the designer and the party that hired and approved the project. A licensed architect owes a duty to exercise reasonable care in designing a structure, including using appropriate wind-load data and safety margins and applying engineering standards. In this scenario, the architect designed pylons intended to withstand winds 20% higher than historical data. That margin is intended to reduce risk, but it does not automatically shield the architect from liability if the design was nonetheless negligent—for example, if the wind-load data were misused, if critical loads or failure modes were overlooked, or if the resulting structure still failed due to a design error.

The hotel chain, as owner, also has a duty to exercise reasonable care in selecting and supervising professionals and in reviewing and approving plans. By approving the architect’s design and moving forward with construction, the chain undertook responsibility for the project’s safety. If the approval was negligent—such as ignoring warning signs, failing to obtain independent verification, or blindly relying on the architect’s assurances without exercising reasonable oversight—that negligence can support liability for the collapse as well.

Because the harm arose from both a potentially negligent design by the architect and negligent approval/supervision by the hotel chain, both parties can be found liable. The architect’s fault lies in a deficient design or misapplied data, while the hotel chain’s fault lies in approving a plan without adequate independent review or due diligence.