Easton v. Strassburger

Summary

The California Court of Appeal considered whether a seller's real estate broker may be liable for negligence for failing to conduct a reasonably competent and diligent inspection and disclose reasonably discoverable material defects. The court upheld the negligence judgment, concluding that the broker owed an affirmative duty to investigate and disclose such defects and that expert testimony was not required under the circumstances. The court also agreed that the broker was improperly denied indemnification, although the provided excerpt does not include the complete disposition of the damages issue.

Holdings

1. A real-estate broker representing the seller in a residential transaction has an affirmative duty to conduct a reasonably competent and diligent inspection of the listed property and disclose to prospective purchasers all facts materially affecting the property's value or desirability that the investigation would reveal. In a negligence action, the buyer need not prove that the broker actually knew the defect or that the defect was accessible only to the broker and seller.
2. Expert testimony is not required to establish the standard of care or breach in a real-estate broker negligence action when the issues are resolvable by common knowledge and the relevant facts can be assessed through ordinary use of the senses.
3. A party that fails to object below to the damages theory or instruction may not raise for the first time on appeal a claim that the case was tried under an erroneous measure of damages.
4. The active-passive negligence distinction cannot bar a claim for partial indemnity among concurrent tortfeasors when indemnity is sought on a comparative-fault basis under American Motorcycle. The portion of the judgment denying Valley partial indemnity was reversed and remanded.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a seller's real-estate broker owes a negligence-based duty to conduct a reasonably competent and diligent inspection of residential property and disclose material defects that a reasonable investigation would reveal.
2. Whether expert testimony was required to establish the applicable standard of care or the broker's breach.
3. Whether the broker preserved its challenge to the measure of damages and whether the damages instruction was erroneous.
4. Whether procedural objections to the late fiduciary-duty order and the submission of negligence to the jury were preserved and prejudicial.
5. Whether the active-passive negligence distinction could bar the broker's claim for partial indemnity based on comparative fault.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded