[Cite as Jones v. Centex Homes, 132 Ohio St.3d 1, 2012-Ohio-1001.] 

JONES ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. CENTEX HOMES, APPELLEE. 

[Cite as Jones v. Centex Homes, 132 Ohio St.3d 1, 2012-Ohio-1001.] 

A home builder’s duty to construct a house in a workmanlike manner using 

ordinary care is a duty imposed by law, and a home buyer’s right to 

enforce that duty cannot be waived. 

(No. 2010-1826—Submitted October 4, 2011—Decided March 14, 2012.) 

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, Nos. 09AP-1032 and 

09AP-1033, 189 Ohio App.3d 668, 2010-Ohio-4268. 

__________________ 

SYLLABUS OF THE COURT

A home builder’s duty to construct a house in a workmanlike manner using 

ordinary care is a duty imposed by law, and a home buyer’s right to 

enforce that duty cannot be waived. (Velotta v. Leo Petronzio 

Landscaping, Inc., 69 Ohio St.2d 376, 433 N.E.2d 147 (1982), paragraph 

one of the syllabus, and Mitchem v. Johnson, 7 Ohio St.2d 66, 218 N.E.2d 

594 (1966), paragraph three of the syllabus, clarified and followed.) 

__________________ 

PFEIFER, J. 

{¶ 1} The sole question before this court is whether a home buyer can 

waive his right to enforce a home builder’s legal duty to construct a house in a 

workmanlike manner. We hold that he cannot. 

Factual and Procedural Background 

{¶ 2} Appellants Paul Jones and Latosha Sanders purchased a new house 

from appellee, Centex Homes, in 2004. After moving into their new home, they 

discovered that their computers, cordless telephones, and televisions did not 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2 

operate properly. They alleged that metal joists in the house are magnetized and 

are causing the problems. 

{¶ 3} Apparently, efforts to resolve the problem were unavailing, 

because they filed suit against Centex Homes, alleging various causes of action, 

including breach of contract, breach of express and implied warranties, 

negligence, and failure to perform in a workmanlike manner. On April 30, 2008, 

that case was consolidated with a nearly identical case filed by Eric and Ginger 

Estep, who are also appellants in this case. Centex Homes moved for summary 

judgment, arguing that appellants had waived all warranties, whether express or 

implied, except the specific limited warranty that Centex Homes provided in the 

sales agreements. The trial court agreed and granted the motion for summary 

judgment, finding “as a matter of law that the Limited Home Warranty is not 

unconscionable.” 

{¶ 4} On appeal, the court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment, 

stating: 

[W]e find no error with the trial court’s determination that both the 

sale agreement and the limited warranty adequately explained in 

“numerous places that the Limited Home Warranty covers all 

defects in materials and workmanship and that there are no other 

warranties either expressed or implied.” 

Jones v. Centex Homes, 189 Ohio App.3d 668, 2010-Ohio-4268, 939 N.E.2d 

1294, ¶ 30. 

{¶ 5} We granted appellants’ discretionary appeal. Jones v. Centex 

Homes, 127 Ohio St.3d 1531, 2011-Ohio-376, 940 N.E.2d 985. 
January Term, 2012 

3 

Analysis 

A. The duty to construct a house in a workmanlike manner 

{¶ 6} The duty to construct a house in a workmanlike manner has been 

imposed by law on all home builders in Ohio since at least 1966. In Mitchem v. 

Johnson, 7 Ohio St.2d 66, 218 N.E.2d 594 (1966), home buyers sought 

compensation for water damage resulting from their houses having been built in a 

low portion of a lot with surface-water problems and without a foundation 

drainage system. Notwithstanding the fact that no warranty covered the alleged 

defect, we concluded that the home buyers were entitled to recover damages if 

they could establish that the home builder had not constructed the house in a 

workmanlike manner, stating: 

A duty is imposed by law upon a builder-vendor of a realproperty structure to construct the same in a workmanlike manner 

and to employ such care and skill in the choice of materials and 

work as will be commensurate with the gravity of the risk involved 

in protecting the structure against faults and hazards, including 

those inherent in its site. If the violation of that duty proximately 

causes a defect hidden from revelation by an inspection reasonably 

available to the vendee, the vendor is answerable to the vendee for 

the resulting damages. 

Id. at paragraph three of the syllabus. 

{¶ 7} In determining that a duty to construct a house in a workmanlike 

manner exists, the court plowed the wide fertile plain between two extreme 

concepts: caveat emptor and strict liability. Id. at 70-72. Without expressly 

saying so, the court appears to have determined that it would be unfair for it to 

apply either of these standards. See id. at 70-73. The court also stated that “[t]he 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4 

requirement of workmanlike performance is no more than that which the law 

imposes upon the builder of a structure on land owned by another, unless, of 

course, a higher duty may be fairly implied from the terms of the contract itself.” 

Id. at 69, citing 17A Corpus Juris Secundum, Contracts, Section 515, at 851. The 

court specifically stated that an implied warranty was not being imposed. Id. at 

paragraph two of the syllabus. 

{¶ 8} In Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Bonnie Built Homes, 64 Ohio St.2d 269, 

270-271, 416 N.E.2d 623 (1980), we stated that the “duty of the builder-vendor to 

build a structure in a workmanlike manner is a duty arising out of the contract of 

sale and not out of a general duty owed to the public at large,” and we held that 

the duty to construct a house in a workmanlike manner did not extend to 

subsequent buyers of the house. Just three years later, we recanted. In McMillan 

v. Brune-Harpenau-Torbeck Builders, Inc., 8 Ohio St.3d 3, 4, 455 N.E.2d 1276 

(1983), we overruled Bonnie Built, stating, “No sound policy reasons exist to 

prevent the extension of this duty to all subsequent vendees as well.” Our 

decision was grounded in two policy considerations: “extension of the duty of 

care in the real property context follows the trend of strong legal precedent in the 

area of products liability” and “[i]mproved workmanship and accountability are 

promoted by an expansion of the scope of the duty.” Id. at 5. 

{¶ 9} Between Bonnie Built and McMillan, we further explored the 

ramifications of the duty to construct in a workmanlike manner in Velotta v. Leo 

Petronzio Landscaping, Inc., 69 Ohio St.2d 376, 433 N.E.2d 147 (1982). The 

court clearly differentiated an implied warranty of suitability, which in effect 

would hold a builder strictly liable for defects in the structure, from the duty to 

construct in a workmanlike manner, which essentially holds a builder liable only 

for negligence. Id. at 377-378. We concluded that although the obligation to 

construct in a workmanlike manner may arise from a contract, the cause of action 

is not based on contract but on a duty imposed by law. Id. at 378-379. Thus, we 
January Term, 2012 

5 

held that the duty applied in Velotta, even though no oral or written warranties 

had been offered or agreed to. Id. at 377. In fact, the house had been sold “as is.” 

Id. at 376. 

{¶ 10} We conclude that in Ohio, a duty to construct houses in a 

workmanlike manner using ordinary care is imposed by law on all home builders. 

B. Can a home buyer waive his right to enforce the home builder’s 

duty to construct the house in a workmanlike manner? 

{¶ 11} Appellants and Centex Homes agree that the purchase contracts 

associated with this case contain provisions that waive all implied warranties. In 

place of whatever implied warranties might otherwise be in effect, Centex Homes 

offered a detailed limited warranty. Although we see no legal impediment to such 

an arrangement, that issue is not squarely before us. We are called upon only to 

determine whether a home buyer can waive his right to enforce the builder’s legal 

duty to construct the house in a workmanlike manner using ordinary care. 

{¶ 12} At oral argument, Centex Homes repeatedly referred to the 

requirement that a home builder construct a house in a workmanlike manner as an 

“implied warranty,” while appellants repeatedly referred to it as a “duty.” In 

Mitchem, we referred to the requirement as a “duty,” but we also said that it was 

an “implied term of the sale” that the builder would complete the house in a 

workmanlike manner. Mitchem, 7 Ohio St.2d at 73, 218 N.E.2d 594, and 

paragraph three of the syllabus. It is clear, based on the discussion above, that we 

concluded that the requirement is not an implied warranty, but instead is a duty 

imposed by law. 

{¶ 13} To determine whether a home buyer can waive his right to enforce 

this duty, we again turn to Mitchem and Velotta. In Mitchem, we stated that all 

persons must “measure their conduct by that of the ordinarily prudent person 

under all the circumstances, which include the risk of harm from the natural and 

probable consequences of that conduct.” Id. at 72. Having enunciated this 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

6 

general rule, we stated that it applied to home builders. Id. In Velotta, we stated 

that the duty owed by a builder-vendor “is the duty imposed by law on all persons 

to exercise ordinary care.” Velotta, 69 Ohio St.2d at 378, 433 N.E.2d 147. And 

we held that the duty applied even though the house had been sold “as is” and 

there had been no express or implied warranties. Id.

{¶ 14} We conclude that the duty to construct a house in a workmanlike 

manner using ordinary care is the baseline standard that Ohio home buyers can 

expect builders to meet. The duty does not require builders to be perfect, but it 

does establish a standard of care below which builders may not fall without being 

subject to liability, even if a contract with the home buyer purports to relieve the 

builder of that duty. Accordingly, we conclude that a home builder’s duty to 

construct a house in a workmanlike manner using ordinary care is a duty imposed 

by law, and a home buyer’s right to enforce that duty cannot be waived. 

Conclusion 

{¶ 15} We reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand the 

cause to the court of common pleas for a trial on appellants’ tort claims that 

Centex Homes breached its duty to construct their homes in a workmanlike 

manner using ordinary care. The various other issues decided by the trial court 

and the court of appeals are unaffected by our opinion. 

Judgment reversed 

and cause remanded. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., and LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER,

and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 

CUPP, J., concurs in judgment only. 

__________________ 

Steve J. Edwards, for appellants. 

Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, L.L.P., Michael G. Long, and Jonathan P. 

Corwin, for appellee. 
January Term, 2012 

7 

Kristen L. Klaus, urging affirmance for amici curiae, National Association 

of Home Builders and Ohio Home Builders Association. 

______________________