In a recent trend in construction defect cases, plaintiffs claim that an architect of record is liable not only for its own architectural design work but also for the design work of other disciplines, such as project engineers. Plaintiffs now frequently argue that the architect, who is typically tasked with assembling the plans prepared by all project design professionals into a single set of construction documents, is responsible for the code-compliance and overall sufficiency of the entire set. Plaintiffs pursuing the architect in negligence base this claim on theories of vicarious liability or breach of nondelegable duty, often improperly conflating and combining the two. However, absent a contractual agreement by the architect to be responsible for these services, Florida law is unlikely to impose any such responsibility.

Vicarious liability and nondelegable duties are insular theories of liability, each underpinned by different legal rationales. To be vicariously liable, a defendant does not need to breach any duty to the plaintiff; its liability is instead based solely on the legal imputation of responsibility for another party's tortious acts. The doctrine is designed to increase the likelihood that a financially capable party may be held to answer for certain negligent acts. A common iteration is that of respondeat superior, which holds an employer liable for the negligent acts of its employees committed within the scope of their employment.