Sam Kraus Company v. State Highway

On February 27, 1964, plaintiff filed this suit seeking to recover from defendant the sum of $35,000, together with 6% interest
from December 11, 1957. The trial court sustained defendant's motion for summary judgment which was based upon the contention
that the claim was barred by the five-year statute of limitations. See § 516.120. 1 Plaintiff has duly appealed
from the judgment entered. The petition alleges that on Marcy 11, 1953, plaintiff "entered into a contract with the defendant * * * to do certain work
on a project known as Third Street Highway, in the City of St. Louis; * * * that Third Street Highway adjoins certain property
known as the St. Louis Cordage Company building * * * owned by American Manufacturing Company; * * * that excavation required
by the plans and specifications for a retaining wall abutted and adjoined the foundation of the St. Louis Cordage Company
building; that said plans and specifications required special construction methods to accomplish the construction for the
retaining wall * * *. Defendant warranted that its engineering design, plans and specifications, were adequate to accomplish
the purpose manifested by the plans and specifications without any damage to adjacent or abutting property and that if the
plaintiff followed the plans and specifications and adhered to the specific provisions thereof and executed this work in a
workmanlike manner in accordance therewith, no damage would result to any property or any buildings adjacent to and abutting
on the proposed work. * * * that at all times it adhered to and followed the plans and specifications, including all change
orders issued during the progress of the work. * * * that despite the fact that it followed the plans and specifications and
change orders in connection therewith implicitly and completely, the foundation of the St. Louis Cordage Company building
settled and the walls cracked as a result of the work required of the plaintiff by the defendant. * * * that the basis of
the design for the construction of the retaining wall was deficient and did not conform to prudent and accepted engineering
standards. In addition to the defect in design, the defendant required the plaintiff to drive piling in close proximity to
said building and to excavate for the construction of said Sections 6, 7, and 8 of Retaining Wall 'A' without adequate engineering
plans and specifications for preventing the displacement or settlement of the earth upon which the building was founded or
for otherwise preventing damage to the said building; that defendant delayed the work unnecessarily during the period of excavation
and construction, thereby permitting and encouraging the erosion of lands underneath the foundation of said building and the
consolidation of the soft, wet clays due to the localized lowering of the ground water table. * * * Defendant required the
blasting of rock in close proximity to said building to increase the depth of the excavation which accelerated the displacement
and settlement of the earth underneath the foundation of said building."