Liability of the Works Director: Understanding the Scope of Professional Responsibility

In construction projects, the Works Director plays a crucial and delicate role, balancing the nature of the assignment with the responsibility to ensure that the work is carried out correctly and in accordance with the project. This is considered an obligation of means, requiring the professional to adopt all reasonable precautions to prevent defects and guarantee compliance with technical standards.

A Case That Clarifies the Limits of Supervision

A recent ruling by the Supreme Court has provided important clarification on the extent of the Works Director’s liability, especially concerning the duty of supervision and the consequences of prolonged absences from the construction site.
The case involved the construction of a single-family home where significant defects emerged. The client sued both the contractor and the Works Director. While the Trial Court assigned only limited liability to the professional, the Court of Appeal expanded her responsibility after finding substantial shortcomings in her supervision.

The Appeal and the Supreme Court’s Position

The Works Director appealed, arguing that her absence from the site should not automatically imply negligence and that the appellate court had misinterpreted the evidence.
The Supreme Court, however, fully rejected the appeal and confirmed the earlier decision of the Court of Appeal.

Why Prolonged Absence Is Considered Negligence

One of the most significant aspects of the ruling concerns the long period—around nine months—during which the Works Director did not carry out any documented supervisory activity. During this time, multiple construction defects accumulated.
The Court emphasized that absence from the site is not a trivial detail but a clear indicator of inadequate supervision. Site supervision cannot be occasional; it requires ongoing, continuous presence to ensure adherence to the project and to prevent defects that may later become irreversible.

The Standard of Diligence Required in Professional Practice

The ruling applies the principle of “diligentia quam in concreto”, meaning that a professional must exercise the level of diligence appropriate to the task, the context and the legitimate expectations of the client.
The Works Director must not only verify the correct execution of the project but also intervene promptly when issues arise, issuing corrective instructions or formal warnings.
When serious and widespread defects are found and there is no evidence of consistent supervision, the Court considers the omission itself sufficient to establish liability.

How the Court Assessed the Evidence

The Works Director also contested the assessment of testimonies and documents. The Supreme Court reiterated that evaluating evidence is within the exclusive competence of trial courts and can be reviewed only in cases of serious logical contradictions.
Although the court-appointed technical expert did not explicitly attribute liability to the Works Director, he did not exclude it either. The Court of Appeal correctly observed that most of the professional’s inspections took place after the defects had already formed.

The Court’s Approach to Litigation Costs

Another issue raised concerned the allocation of legal costs. The Works Director argued that the client had been partially unsuccessful at first instance.
The Supreme Court clarified that a reduction in the amount awarded does not constitute mutual defeat. This occurs only when both parties advance opposing claims. Consequently, the decision to charge the entirety of the litigation costs to the Works Director was confirmed.

A Decision That Strengthens the Professional Framework

This ruling reiterates that the role of the Works Director is far from being a mere formality. Effective supervision requires constant presence, continuous checks and timely intervention.
Prolonged absence from the site and a lack of documented inspections are incompatible with the expected standards of professional diligence.
This decision represents an important precedent for both construction professionals and clients, confirming that the Works Director is liable not only for actions taken but also for omissions that enable the development of defects or non-conformities.