Under the completion and acceptance doctrine, once an independent contractor finishes work on a project, and the work has been accepted by the owner, the contractor is no longer liable for injuries to third parties, even if the work was negligently performed.
Historically, after completion and acceptance, the risk of liability for the project belonged solely to the property owner. This court has not addressed this doctrine in over 40 years and, in the meantime, 37 states have rejected it. Under the modern.approach, a builder or construction contractor is liable for injury or damage to a third person as a result of negligent work, even after completion and acceptance of that work, when it was reasonably foreseeable that a third person would be injured due to that negligence.

1. The court rejected the common law rule concerning completion and acceptance that had been in effect until this decision and ordered a new trial.
What was the key reason for that decision? How does the new rule affect liability?
2. A judge on the court dissented from the decision.
Explaining his opposition to the decision of the majority, he said this change in the law should have been done by the legislature in a statute, not the court. What are the practical problems with such a view?