(1) is caused by or results from:
(A) defects in plans, designs, or specifications prepared, approved, or used by the architect or engineer; or
(B) negligence of the architect or engineer in the rendition or conduct of professional duties called for or arising out of the construction contract and the plans, designs, or specifications that are a part of the construction contract; and
(2) arises from:
(A) personal injury or death;
(B) property injury; or
(C) any other expense that arises from personal injury, death, or property injury.
This prohibition applies only to “personal injury” and “property injury”, which may mean that the Contractor can indemnify the Architect for economic losses arising from the Architect’s own negligence. Nevertheless, none of the AIA forms attempt to require the contractor to indemnify the Architect from his own negligence. See, e.g., AIA Document A 201 (General Conditions for the Contract of Construction), ¶3.18.
b Common Law Limitations
There is no statutory prohibition against an Owner indemnifying an Architect from his own negligence, but if it were to do so, the clause would have to meet both the “express negligence” test from Ethyl Corp. v. Daniel Construction Company, 725 S.W.2d 705 (Tex. 1987) and the requirement that such a clause be conspicuous. Dresser Industries v. Page Petroleum, 853 S.W.2d 505 (Tex. 1993); Ensearch v. Parker, 794 S.W.2d 2, 8 (Tex. 1990).
2 Indemnification from Others’ Negligence
Tex.Rem.Code Section 130.005 (Vernon’s Supp. 1996) specifically allows contractors and others to indemnify the Architect from their [the contractor’s] negligence, and the AIA General Conditions ¶3.18 attempt to do precisely that. The clause, however, is unenforceable in some jurisdiction which have adopted the “express negligence” standard. See, e.g., Fisk Electric Company v. Constructor’s & Associates, Inc., 888 S.W.2d 813 (Tex. 1994).
3 Indemnification of Others from Their Own Negligence
Owners routinely attempt to have their Architects indemnify them from the consequences of their own negligence. The clauses are of course subject to the express negligence rule, discussed above. The conspicuousness requirement may, however, be subject to actual notice. Cf.. Cate v. Dover Corp., 790 S.W.2d 559 (Tex.1990). Since this clause always is the subject of negotiation, however, the Architect generally will have a difficult time arguing that it was unaware of its inclusion.
Note: Many local governments historically have coerced their architects and engineers to sign express negligence clauses. Last year, the Texas Legislature ended this pernicious practice by declaring the provisions void, at least in cases involving personal injury or property damage. See, Tex.Loc.Gov.Code §271.904 (Vernon’s Supp. 1996).
III Risk Avoidance
In addition to limiting liability, careful draftsmanship may be successful in eliminating it.
（1） 起因于或产生于：
(A) defects in plans, designs, or specifications prepared, approved, or used by the architect or engineer; or
（A） 由建筑师或工程师制定的、批准的或采用的计划、设计或技术条件中的缺陷
(B) negligence of the architect or engineer in the rendition or conduct of professional duties called for or arising out of the construction contract and the plans, designs, or specifications that are a part of the construction contract; and
（B） 建筑师或工程师专业职责中的过失，这在他们解释或进行要求或由此产生施工合同，以及作为施工合同一部分的计划、设计或技术条件中产生；
(2) arises from:
（2） 产生自：
(A) personal injury or death;
（A） 人身伤害或死亡；
(B) property injury; or
（B） 财产的损害
(C) any other expense that arises from personal injury, death, or property injury.
（C） 任何其他因人身伤害、死亡或财产损害产生的费用。
This prohibition applies only to “personal injury” and “property injury”, which may mean that the Contractor can indemnify the Architect for economic losses arising from the Architect’s own negligence. Nevertheless, none of the AIA forms attempt to require the contractor to indemnify the Architect from his own negligence. See, e.g., AIA Document A 201 (General Conditions for the Contract of Construction), ¶3.18.这一禁止只适用于“人身伤害”和“财产损害”，这可能意味着承包商可以赔偿建筑师因其自己的过失产生的经济损失。不管怎样，美国建筑师协会（AIA）没人会试图要求承包商因其自己的过失赔偿建筑师。参见AIA文件 A 201（施工合同用一般条件）3.18条款。
b Common Law Limitations
b 普通法的限制
There is no statutory prohibition against an Owner indemnifying an Architect from his own negligence, but if it were to do so, the clause would have to meet both the “express negligence” test from Ethyl Corp. v. Daniel Construction Company, 725 S.W.2d 705 (Tex. 1987) and the requirement that such a clause be conspicuous. Dresser Industries v. Page Petroleum, 853 S.W.2d 505 (Tex. 1993); Ensearch v. Parker, 794 S.W.2d 2, 8 (Tex. 1990).
对业主因建筑师自己的过失而赔偿建筑师没有法定的禁止，但是如果他打算这样做，那么条款将必须同时满足以下两个要求：来自Ethyl Corp. 公司对 Daniel 建筑公司的案例, 725 S.W.2d 705 (Tex. 1987)的“明示过失”，以及这样的条款要是醒目的要求。参见Dresser Industries公司对Page 石油公司的案例, 853 S.W.2d 505 (Tex. 1993); Ensearch 对Parker的案例, 794 S.W.2d 2, 8 (Tex. 1990).
2 Indemnification from Others’ Negligence
2. 因其他人过失的赔偿
Tex.Rem.Code Section 130.005 (Vernon’s Supp. 1996) specifically allows contractors and others to indemnify the Architect from their [the contractor’s] negligence, and the AIA General Conditions ¶3.18 attempt to do precisely that. The clause, however, is unenforceable in some jurisdiction which have adopted the “express negligence” standard. See, e.g., Fisk Electric Company v. Constructor’s & Associates, Inc., 888 S.W.2d 813 (Tex. 1994).
Tex.Rem.Code Section 130.005 (Vernon’s Supp. 1996)专门允许承包商和其他人因他们（承包商）的过失而赔偿建筑师，而AIA的“一般条件”3.18条款试图精确地做到这样。可是，该条款在某些一直采用“明示过失”标准的司法权中是不能强制执行的。参见Fisk电力公司对建筑商和伙伴公司的案例，888 S.W.2d 813 (Tex. 1994)。
3 Indemnification of Others from Their Own Negligence
3．其他人因他们自己过失的赔偿
Owners routinely attempt to have their Architects indemnify them from the consequences of their own negligence. The clauses are of course subject to the express negligence rule, discussed above. 业主常常试图让他们的建筑师因他们自己的过失而赔偿他们。当然，这些条款就受到上面讨论的明示过失规则的支配。The conspicuousness requirement may, however, be subject to actual notice. Cf.. Cate v. Dover Corp., 790 S.W.2d 559 (Tex.1990). Since this clause always is the subject of negotiation, however, the Architect generally will have a difficult time arguing that it was unaware of its inclusion. 然而，醒目性的要求可能受到实际的注意。参见Cf.. Cate 公司对 Dover Corp., 公司的案例790 S.W.2d 559 (Tex.1990)。因为这一条款总是谈判的主题，而建筑师一般难以争辩说，他不知道将其列入议程。
Note: Many local governments historically have coerced their architects and engineers to sign express negligence clauses. Last year, the Texas Legislature ended this pernicious practice by declaring the provisions void, at least in cases involving personal injury or property damage. See, Tex.Loc.Gov.Code §271.904 (Vernon’s Supp. 1996).
注意：很多地方政府在历史上一直强迫他们的建筑师和工程师们签署明示过失条款。去年，得克萨斯州立法机构通过宣布条款的无效，至少在涉及人身伤害或财产损害的情况下，终止了这一有害的惯例。参见得克萨斯州地方政府规程§271.904 (Vernon’s Supp. 1996)。
III Risk Avoidance
III 风险规避
In addition to limiting liability, careful draftsmanship may be successful in eliminating it.
除了限制责任外，仔细起草消除责任中可能是成功的.
(一)的缺陷,在规划、设计、规格、批准,或者使用准备由建筑师和工程师,或
(B)的疏忽建筑师和工程师的工作职责或行为的明暗要求或因施工总承包、规划、设计、或规格,建设工程施工合同的一部份;
(2)所产生的。
(一)人身伤害或死亡。
(B)财产损害;或
(三)其他费用,源于个人受伤、死亡或财产的伤害。
这一禁令只适用于“人身伤害”、“财产”,这可能意味着受伤,承包人可以承担经济损失均由建筑师的建筑师的过失。然而,所有的AIA形式企图承包商必须承担自己的疏忽。建筑师看,例如,AIA文件(一般条件2.01合同,¶3.18)。
乙普通法的局限性
没有法定禁止主人被建筑师从自己的过失,但是如果这样做,这一条款必须做到既过失”,“从乙公司诉理测试,295 S.W.2d建设公司(1987)的应用。并要求这样的条款是引人注目。梳妆台的行业,853 S.W.2d v页石油。1993年)(特克斯505;Ensearch 794 S.W.2d v帕克说,2(1990)。。
从别人的过失2赔偿
Tex.Rem.Code部分130.005(增刊)。1996年弗农的特别允许承包商和其他人承担建筑师从他们的过失(承包商,AIA一般条件¶3.18企图做精确。这个条款,但是无法在一些辖区采用“表达过失”,标准。看,例如,费斯克电力公司诉构造方法和伙伴公司、888 S.W.2d 813(1994)。
3赔偿别人从自己的过失
他们经常尝试所有者建筑师偿还他们的自己的过失。这个条款,当然是在表达疏忽规则,上面讨论。conspicuousness的要求,但可能会受到实际的通知。Cf…凯特v多佛集团、790 S.W.2d 559(Tex.1990)。从这一条款的谈判一直是主体,然而,设计师通常会有困难的时候,他们认为这是意识到它。
注:许多地方政府已经强迫他们历史性的建筑师和工程师签署表达疏忽条款。去年,德克萨斯州的立法机构通过宣布结束这个遗留下来的条款无效的,至少在涉及人身伤害或财产损失。看,Tex.Loc.Gov.Code§271.904(弗农的增刊。1996年)。
III风险规避措施
除了限制责任、细致描绘都十分出色可成功地消除它。
（ 1 ）引起的或结果：
（一）缺陷的规划，设计，或规格编写，核准，或使用由建筑师或工程师;或
（二）玩忽职守的建筑师或工程师在两地移交逃犯或进行专业职责要求或由此产生的建筑合同和计划，设计，或规格，是一个组成部分的建造合同;和
（ 2 ）来自：
（一）人身伤害或死亡;
（ b ）财产伤害;或
（ c ）任何其他费用，产生于人身伤害，死亡，或财产损害。
这项禁令只适用于“人身伤害”和“财产损害” ，这可能意味着，承包建筑师可以赔偿的经济损失所引起的建筑师自己的过失。然而，没有任何形式的友邦企图要求承包商赔偿建筑师来自他自己的过失。例如，见友邦文件201 （一般条件的施工合同） ， ¶ 3月18日。
b普通法限制
没有法定禁止的所有者赔偿建筑师来自他自己的过失，但如果它在这样做的，该条款必须满足的“明示疏忽”测试由乙基公司诉丹尼尔建筑公司， 725 SW2d 705 （德州1987年）的要求，这样一项条款是显眼。德雷瑟工业诉页石油， 853 SW2d 505 （德州1993年） ; Ensearch诉帕克， 794 SW2d 2日， 8日（德州1990年） 。
2赔偿他人疏忽
Tex.Rem.Code科一百三十零点○○五（弗农的补充。 1996年）特别允许承包商和其他赔偿给建筑师从他们的[承包商]疏忽，和友邦的一般条件¶ 3月18日试图做到这一点。这一条款，但是，在某些管辖范围内强制执行已通过了“表示过失”的标准。例如，见菲斯克电气公司诉构造的＆合伙制裁公司， 888 SW2d 813 （德州1994年） 。
3赔偿其他从自己的过失
业主经常试图将其建筑师赔偿他们造成的后果自己的过失。该条款当然是受表示疏忽规则，上面讨论。该卓越要求可的能，然而，受实际通知。比照..凯特布兰诉多佛尔公司， 790 S.W.2d 559 （ Tex.1990 ） 。由于这一条款一直是谈判的主题，但是，建筑师一般会有一定的困难认为它不知道将其列入议程。
注：许多地方政府历来强迫他们建筑师和工程师签署表示疏忽条款。去年，得克萨斯州议会结束这种有害的做法，宣布无效的规定，至少在涉及人身伤害或财产损失。见， Tex.Loc.Gov.Code § 271.904 （弗农的补充。 1996年） 。
三风险规避
除了限制赔偿责任，认真的制图术可成功地消除它。
