Charles Grogan v. Daniel Uggla, et al.

Summary

Justice Sharon G. Lee dissents from the dismissal of Charles Grogan’s negligence claim against home inspector Jerry Black. She concludes that a home inspector owes a duty of reasonable care to a homeowner’s guest when a negligently missed defect, such as a dangerous second-story deck railing, could foreseeably cause serious injury. The dissent would have allowed a jury to determine whether the inspector breached that duty.

Holdings

1. In the dissent's view, a home inspector owes a duty of reasonable care to a homeowner's guest when it is foreseeable that negligent inspection of a dangerous condition could cause the guest serious injury, even though the guest neither contracted for nor relied on the inspection.
2. Summary judgment should have been denied because the evidence, viewed favorably to Grogan, supported a legally cognizable duty and left whether Black breached that duty for a jury to decide.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a home inspector owes a duty of reasonable care to a homeowner's social guest who was not a party to the inspection contract and did not rely on the inspection report.
2. Whether, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the guest, the foreseeability and gravity of the potential harm outweighed the burden of preventive conduct and supported imposing a duty as a matter of law.
3. Whether summary judgment should have been denied so that a jury could decide whether the home inspector breached the duty of reasonable care.

Disposition

other