Prichard Bros., Inc. v. Grady Co.
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1989, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Cases that cite this one
6 later published cases cite this decision.
- Mid-Western Electric, Inc. v. DeWild Grant Reckert & Associates Co. (S.D. 1993)
- Prichard Bros., Inc. v. Grady Co. (Minn. Ct. App. 1989)
- Susan England v. Janice Kolbe, as Guardian of the Estate of Edna Moon (Tex. App. 2015)
- lan/stv, a Joint Venture of Lockwood, Andrews & Newman, Inc. and Stv Incorporated v. Martin K. Eby Construction Company, Inc. (Tex. 2014)
- Calabrese Foundation, Inc. v. Investment Advisors, Inc. (United States District Court for the District of Colorado 1993)
- Colbert v. BF Carvin Const. Co. (La. Ct. App. 1992)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
*392 OPINION
Independent School District No. 353 entered into separate contracts with the appellant Prichard Brothers, as general contractor, and the Grady Company, as architect, for the construction of a school building project. There was no direct contractual relationship between Prichard and Grady.
Ultimately, Prichard Brothers commenced suit against Grady for the latter’s alleged negligence and bad faith in performing its architectural services. Prich-ard also commenced suit against the school, alleging that it was vicariously liable for Grady’s negligence. The matter was tried to a jury which found Grady 64% causally negligent and awarded damages of 1257,94o. 1 The jury also found that Grady was not the agent of the school.
On post-trial motions, the trial court ruled that Grady was the school’s agent as a matter of law and that Grady and the school were jointly and severally liable for $193,398.04 including prejudgment interest.
The court of appeals reversed, holding that a negligence action was improper under the rule of Superwood Corp. v. Siempelkamp Corp., 311 N.W.2d 159 (Minn. 1981). It concluded instead that the only remedies available to the appellant were governed by contract. It analyzed the appellants’ “potential contract claims” and ruled that there was a failure to prove any breach of contract. It dismissed the action with prejudice and did not address other identified issues. We granted further review pending disposition of McCarthy Well Co. v. St. Peter Creamery, 410 N.W.2d 312 (Minn. 1987).
It is our view that the McCarthy decision, to the effect that Superwood does not bar negligence recovery in service transactions, is dispositive and that the appellant Prichard’s claim against Grady is not barred. It is unnecessary to determine the contractual relationship, if any, between Prichard and Grady and the “potential contract claims,” if any, which Prichard may have against Grady.
As a result of our application of the McCarthy decision to this matter, it is necessary to remand the appeal to the court of appeals to resolve undecided issues relating to the sufficiency of the evidence or to the vicarious liability of the school.
Reversed and remanded to the court of appeals for further proceedings.
. The decision of the court of appeals, Prichard Bros, Inc. v. Grady Co., 407 N.W.2d 423 (Minn.App. 1987) contains a complete recitation of the facts constituting Grady’s negligence.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.