If you accept the premise that landscape architecture, as a profession, holds a unique title to the stewardship of our environment and that much of what is being designed by landscape architects remains in place for years, then it makes good sense that society will hold landscape architecture to an even higher standard of quality in its treatment of that environment. That higher standard, however, is not just limited to aesthetics. It goes well beyond and certain falls into a multitude of other areas, one of the most important being public safety.

Whenever providing design services to virtually any project, it is exceptionally important to apply a “common sense” factor as a test to judge whether public safety has been adequately considered. That in simple terms means actually asking the question, “How could someone be injured in the setting I have just designed?” This question should be applied in both hardscape and softscape design situations since both offer potential for injury if not properly designed.

Consider plant material with a moderate or tall growth habit utilized in close proximity to any roads, driveways, medians, corners, walkways or sidewalks. It should be rather obvious that if someone has obstructed vision because of the plant material specified and that person becomes injured or even dies, the professional choice of that plant material will become a focal point and important issue in a lawsuit. As if that isn’t enough, I frankly think that addressing future maintenance issues in your overall plan are a critical step to keeping yourself out of court in such situations in the future. By that I mean your pointing out to your client in writing their responsibility to maintain (periodic pruning) the plant material you have specified in such situations to preclude someone from being injured. Nothing should be left to “assumption” because it seems “obvious to you!”

The issue of public safety is typically somewhat clearer when it comes to hardscape design. I suspect that more attention and focus is provided to this area in formal schooling. Structures of any kind to which the public will be exposed must be safe whether they be decks, walk surfaces, stairs, security fencing, retaining walls, terrace grades or any other structures for that matter. The same common sense test question applies, name, “How could someone be injured in the setting I have just designed?” You must recognize that your design need not be the only cause of injury; it needs only to contribute to an injury in order for you to have a problem.

Then you have certain areas more difficult to judge. One of these happens to be lighting. If your design involves public areas such as parks, walkways or play areas the lighting needs become critical. Any injury that occurs in other than daylight will most often allege inadequate lighting contributing to or causing the injury. Moreover, I foresee much more litigation stemming from security issues involving sufficiency of lighting including attacks, rape and abductions. These are crazy times we live in with new concerns which must be entered into the design formula. These are obviously serious issues that may have, heretofore, not even been considered, but must be, when designing any areas for the use of the public.

Your choices for limiting your liability exposures are essentially limited to making certain you possess the professional knowledge to provide the safety and aesthetics in your designs, or going outside your firm and hiring the talent with proven experience. Don’t be short sighted in hesitating to hire specialized subcontractors. (Don’t hesitate to demand proof of their professional liability if you are going to hire them either!) Even though their costs may reduce some of your profit, the reward of avoiding litigation can, over time, be very profitable, both emotionally and financially.

Jim Leatzow, Leatzow & Associates Insurance Consultants Glen Ellyn, IL