In the claim between the Developer and the Architect, the question became whether the Developer installed lighting strips on the steps where the woman fell.  Under the Slavin doctrine, an architect is not liable for any defect in the construction that: (a) is patent (as opposed to latent); and (b) has been accepted by the owner.  The Architect argued that if the Developer had installed light strips, the Developer knew about the problem, therefore the defect was patent.

The Developer argued that there was no evidence that it put lighting strips on the stairs (different, of course, than saying it in fact did not install lighting strips).  The appellate court agreed and sent the Developer and the Architect back to court to determine who installed the lighting strips.