Charles Grogan v. Daniel Uggla, Et Al. - Dissenting

Case Number
M2014-01961-SC-R11-CV

The primary issue is whether a home inspector owes a duty of reasonable care to a homeowner’s guest. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the guest, as is required at the summary judgment stage, it was foreseeable that a negligent inspection of the home, and particularly the second-story deck railing, could result in a significant injury to a guest. The foreseeability and gravity of the harm outweighs the burden on the home inspector to protect against the harm. Due to the importance of home inspections, public policy favors the imposition of a duty of care on the home inspector. Therefore, a home inspector, as a matter of law, owes a duty of reasonable care to a guest of the homeowner. Here, a jury should have had the opportunity to decide whether the home inspector breached his duty of care. For these reasons, I dissent from the dismissal of the guest’s claim against the home inspector.

Authoring Judge
Justice Sharon G. Lee
Originating Judge
Judge James G. Martin, III
Case Name
Charles Grogan v. Daniel Uggla, Et Al. - Dissenting
Date Filed
Dissent or Concur
This is a dissenting opinion
Download PDF Version