FILED

October 2, 1996

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate Court Clerk

I N THE COURT OF APPEALS

RI CHARD BRI GGS a nd ) KNOX CI RCUI T

STEPHANI E R. BRI GGS, ) C. A. NO. 03A01- 9603- CV- 00115

 )

 )

 Pl a i ntif f s - Appe lla nt s )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

vs . ) HON. DALE C. WORKMAN

 ) J UDGE

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

RI VERSOUND LI MI TED PARTNERSHI P, ) REVERSED AND REMANDED

WI LLI AM S. NI X d/ b/ a WSN )

ENTERPRI SES, GENERAL PARTNER, )

a nd DARYL WAGNER, )

 )

 De f e nda nt s - Appe l l ees )

DAVI D N. GARST, Le wi s , Ki ng, Kr i e g & Wa l dr op, P. C. , Knoxville f or

a ppe l l a nt .

DAVI D E. SMI TH, Hodge s , Dought y & Ca r s on, Knoxvi l l e , f or Appe l l ee.

O P I N I O N

Mc Mur r a y, J .
1

A s e t t l e me n t agr e e me n t wa s r e a c h e d wi t h t h e Al b e r s , and a vol unt a r y nons u i t

wa s ent e r e d aga i n s t Do n Dunc a n , d/ b / a Fr ont i e r Ho me I n s p e c t i ons , who i n s p e c t e d t h e

h ome f o r t h e Br i g g s pr i o r t o t h e i r p u r c h ase.

2

The s i ngl e i s s ue i n t hi s cas e i s whe t he r a r e mot e pur c ha s e r

of a home ma y ma i nt a i n a ne gl i ge nc e a c t i on a ga i ns t t he bui l de r of

t he home de s pi t e a l a c k of c ont r a c t ua l pr i vi t y. The t r i a l c our t

gr a nt e d s umma r y j udgme nt i n f a vor of t he de f e nda nt a nd t hi s a ppe a l

r e s ul t e d. We r e ve r s e t he j udgme nt of t he t r i a l c our t .

The Pl a i nt i f f s , Dr . a nd Mr s . Ri c ha r d M. Br i ggs , pur c ha s e d a

c ondomi ni um f r om t he De f e nda nt s , Mr . a nd Mr s . Edwa r d S. Al be r s i n

Apr i l 1993. 1 Da r yl Wa gne r Cons t r uc t i on Co. bui l t t he home i n 1989.

The c ondomi ni um wa s a pa r t of a de ve l opme nt by Ri ve r s ound Li mi t e d

Pa r t ne r s hi p, William S. Ni x d/ b/ a WSN Ent e r pr i s e s , Ge ne r a l Pa r t ne r .

The Br i ggs ' na me d t he s e pa r t i e s a s de f e nda nt s , a l l e gi ng ne gl i ge nc e

i n t he c ons t r uc t i on a dmi ni s t r a t i on, s upe r vi s i on, i ns pe c t i on a nd

act ua l c ons t r uc t i on of t he home . Spe c i f i c a l l y, t he pl a i ntif f s

c l a i m t ha t t he i r home wa s da ma ge d due t o a l e a ky ba s e me nt, whi c h

wa s ca us e d by be l ow gr a de hol e s i n t he ba s e me nt wa l l s a nd the

ge ne r a l f a i l ur e of t he c ont r a c t or t o i ns t a l l a de qua t e wa t e r pr oof i ng

of t he ba s e me nt .

The Ci r c uit Cour t f or Knox Count y gr a nt e d s umma r y j udgme nt to

Ri ve r s ound Li mi t e d, WSN a nd Da r yl Wa gne r Cons t r uc t i on, f i ndi ng

" t ha t t he Pl a i nt i f f s ha ve not s t a t e d a caus e of act i on aga i ns t
3

t he s e de f e nda nt s be c a us e t he Cour t f i nds t he y owe d no dut y t o a

r emot e pur c ha s e r of a bui l di ng t he y c ons t r uc t e d t o e xe r c i s e due

car e i n t he c ons t r uc t i on t o pr e ve nt s ubs e que nt da ma ge t o or

de t e r i or a t i on of s a i d pr ope r t y. "

The Br i ggs ' a ppe a l a nd pr e s e nt t he f ol l owi ng i s s ue f or our

c ons i de r a t i on:

Whe t he r an owne r of a r e s i de nc e who l a c ks pr i vi t y

wi t h t he bui l de r t he r e of ma y ma i nt a i n a n a c t i on a ga i ns t

t he bui l de r f or ne gl i ge nc e i n t he c ons t r uc t i on of t he

r e s i de nce.

Becaus e t he t r i a l c our t ba s e d i t s de c i s i on on a que s t i on of

l a w, our s c ope of r e vi e w i s de novo wi t h no pr e s umpt i on of

c or r ect ne s s f or t he t r i a l c our t ' s c onc l us i on. Ada ms v. Dean

Roof i ng Co. , 715 S. W. 2d 341 ( Te nn. App. 1986) ; Billingt on v.

Cr owde r , 553 S. W. 2d 590 ( Te nn. App. 1977) .

The Pl a i nt i f f s ' ar gue t ha t s i nce t hi s i s a ne gl i ge nce cl a i m,

pr i vi t y i s not r e qui r e d t o ma i nt a i n t hi s a c t i on unde r Te nne s s e e ' s

a nti- pr i vity s t a t ut e , c odi f i e d a t Te nne s s e e Code Annot a t e d § 29- 34-

104, whi c h s t a t e s :

Pr i vi t y not requi red. - - I n al l caus e s of act i on f or

pe r s ona l i nj ur y or pr ope r t y da ma ge br ought on a c c ount of

ne gl i ge nc e , s t r i c t lia bility or wa r r a nt y, inc l udi ng
4

act i ons br ought unde r t he pr ovi s i ons of t he Uni f or m

Comme r c i a l Code , pr i vi t y s ha l l not be a r e qui r e me nt t o

ma i nt a i n s a i d a c tion.

We a gr e e with the Pl a i ntif f s ' c ont e ntion tha t s i nc e the y

a l l e ge d pr ope r t y da ma ge t o t he i r home as a r e s ul t of ne gl i ge nce of

t he de f e nda nt s , pr i vi t y i s not r e qui r e d unde r t he s t a t ut e .

Al t hough tr a ditiona lly thi s st a t ut e ha s been as s oc i a t e d wi t h

pr oduc t lia bility a c tions , its pl a i n la ngua ge in no wa y limits its

a ppl i c a t i on i n a wa y t ha t woul d pr e c l ude i t f r om be i ng a ppl i e d t o

s ubs e que nt pur c ha s e r s of a r e s i de nc e .

Thi s Cour t ha s pr e vi ous l y a ddr e s s e d t hi s i s s ue i n Re dbud

Coope r a t i ve Cor p. v. Cl a yt on, 700 S. W. 2d 551 ( Te nn. App. 1985) . I n

Re dbud, a home owne r ' s a s s oc i a t i on a nd i ndi vi dua l home owne r s s ue d a

de ve l ope r ove r dr a i na ge pr obl e ms . The Cour t a f f i r me d t he a wa r d of

da ma ge s a ga i ns t t he de ve l ope r on a ne gl i ge nc e t he or y, e ve n t hough

t he r e c or d s howe d t ha t s ome home owne r s we r e s ubs e que nt pur c ha s e r s

a nd t hus l a c ke d pr i vi t y wi t h t he de ve l ope r . The Cour t f ound t ha t

s i nc e t he j udgme nt c oul d be sus t a i ne d ba s e d upon a ne gl i ge nc e

t he or y, the a nt i - pr i vi t y s t a t ut e a ppl i e d. I d. a t 559.

Our Supr e me Cour t ha s r ecogni zed t he exi s t e nce of cer t a i n

i mplie d wa r r a nt i e s of ne wl y c ons t r uc t e d home s i n Di xon v. Mount a i n

City Cons t r uc t i on Co. , 632 S. W. 2d 538 ( Te nn. 1982) . The Cour t
5

limite d thos e wa r r a ntie s to the initia l pur c ha s e r s a nd limite d to

act i ons on a n i mpl i e d wa r r a nt y t he or y. Thi s cas e , howe ve r , i s not

a wa r r a nt y cas e but i s ba s e d upon ne gl i ge nc e . I n vi e w of t he a nt i -

pr i vity s t a t ut e s e t about above , we s ee no r eas on pr i vi t y s houl d be

r e qui r e d t o ma i nt a i n a n a c t i on f or ne gl i ge nc e . We hol d t ha t a

s ubs e que nt pur c ha s e r ma y ma i nt a i n a ne gl i ge nc e a c t i on a ga i ns t t hos e

who cons t r uc t e d a r e s i de nce, i f t he de f ect s cl a i me d t o ha ve caus e d

t he i nj ur y a r e l a t e nt one s , not known or r e a s ona bl y di s c ove r a bl e t o

e ithe r t he pr e vi ous owne r s or oc c upi e r s , or t he s ubs e que nt

pur c ha s e r . Si nc e pr e vi ous owne r s ma y c a us e da ma ge t ha t a s ubs e -

que nt pur c ha s e r mi ght mi s t a ke nl y a t t r i but e t o t he bui l de r , or

wor s e n a c ondi t i on c a us e d by t he bui l de r , we be l i e ve i t onl y f a i r

t o r e qui r e l a c k of knowl e dge by t he pr e vi ous owne r f or t he

s ubs e que nt pur c ha s e r s t o s t a t e a cl a i m f or ne gl i ge nce as t o t he

bui l de r . 

 

We do not be l i e ve t ha t our de c i s i on t oda y a nd t ha t i n Re dbud

c ont r a di c t s in a ny wa y t he Di xon cas e . Al t hough a cl a i m of

ne gl i ge nc e i n t he c ons t r uc t i on of a home i s s i mi l a r t o a cl a i m

unde r a n i mpl i e d wa r r a nt y, t he r e a r e di f f e r e nc e s t ha t di s t i ngui s h

t he t wo. The Supr e me Cour t of Col or a do di s c us s e d t he di f f e r e nc e s

be t ween the two the or i e s in Cos mopol i t a n Home s , I nc . v. We l l e r , 663

P. 2d 1041 ( Col o. 1983) ( e n ba nc ) :
6

Some ove r l a p i n e l e me nt s of pr oof of s uc h a c t i ons

ma y oc c ur , but t he s c ope of dut y di f f e r s a nd t he ba s i s

f or lia bility is di s tingui s ha bl e . The implie d wa r r a nt y

of ha bi t a bi l i t y a nd f i t ne s s a r i s e s f r om t he c ont r a c t ua l

r e l a tion be t we e n t he bui l de r a nd t he pur c ha s e r . Pr oof of

a de f e c t due t o i mpr ope r c ons t r uc t i on, de s i gn, or

pr e pa r a tion is s uf f i c i e nt to e s t a blis h lia bility in the

bui l de r - ve ndor . Ne gl i ge nc e , howe ve r , r e qui r e s t ha t a

bui l de r or c ont r a c t or be he l d t o a s t a nda r d of r eas ona bl e

car e i n t he c onduc t of i t s dut i e s t o t he f or e s e e a bl e

us e r s of t he pr ope r t y. . . . Ne glige nc e in tor t mus t

e s t a blis h de f e c t s i n wor kma ns hi p, s upe r vi s i on, or de s i gn

a s a r e s pons i bi l i t y of t he i ndi vi dua l de f e nda nt . Pr oof

of de f e c t a l one i s not e nough to e s t a blis h the c l a i m.

For e s eeabi l i t y l i mi t s t he s c ope of t he dut y, a nd t he

pa ssa ge of t i me f ol l owi ng c ons t r uc t i on ma ke s c a us a t i on

di f f i c ul t t o pr ove .

We lle r a t 1045 ( c ita tions omitte d) .

We a l s o f i nd ampl e s uppor t f or our de c i s i on f r om nume r ous

ot he r jur i s di c t i ons . Se e Br own v. Fowl e r , 279 N. W. 2d 907 ( S. D.

1979) ( s ubs e que nt pur c ha s e r s ma y s t a t e a c l a i m f or ne gl i ge nc e

a ga i ns t a bui l de r , a l t hough i mpl i e d wa r r a nt i e s do not e xt e nd be yond

t he fi r s t pur c ha s e r); Wr i ght v. Cr e a tive Cor p. , 498 P. 2d 1179

( Col o. App. 1972) ( s ubs e que nt pur c ha s e r s c oul d ma i nt a i n a c t i on f or

ne gl i ge nc e , but not i mpl i e d wa r r a nt y of me r c ha nt a bi l i t y) ; Cobur n v.

Le nox Home s , I nc . , 173 Conn. 567, 378 A. 2d 599 ( 1977) ( s ubs e que nt

pur c ha s e r s ma y s t a t e a cl a i m i n ne gl i ge nce f or l a t e nt de f ect s ,

a l t hough the implie d wa r r a nt y doe s not e xt e nd t o t he m) ; Pa r l i a me nt

Towe r s Condomi ni um v. Pa r l i a me nt Hous e Real t y, I nc . , 377 So. 2d 976

( Fl a . App. 1979) ( pr i vi t y not r e qui r e d f or ne gl i ge nc e a c t i on a ga i ns t
7

bui l de r or a r c hi t e c t , but i s r e qui r e d f or br e a c h of i mpl i e d

wa rra nt y) ; Na va j o Ci r c l e , I nc . v. De ve l opme nt Conc e pt s Cor p., 373

So. 2d 689 ( Fl a . App. 1979) ( l a c k of pr i vi t y doe s not a f f e c t a t or t

c l a i m s o l ong a s t he pl a i ntif f can es t a bl i s h t he exi s t e nce of a

dut y) ; Si mmons v. Owe ns , 363 So. 2d 142 ( Fl a . App. 1978) ( s ubs e que nt

pur c ha s e r c a n ma i nt a i n ne gl i ge nc e a c t i on a ga i ns t bui l de r f or l a t e nt

de f ect s not di s c ove r a bl e by r e a s ona bl e i ns pe c t i on) ; Mc Donough v.

Wha l e n, 313 N. E. 2d 435 ( Ma s s . 1974) ( bui l de r / c ont r a c t or ma y be

lia bl e f or i nj ur i e s or da ma ge c a us e d by hi s ne gl i ge nc e t o pe r s on

with whom he ha s no c ont r a c t ua l r e l a t i ons hi p) ; Ke ye s v. Guy Ba i l e y

Home s , Inc . , 439 So. 2d 670 ( Mi s s . 1983) ( bui l de r / ve ndor ma y be

lia bl e on ba s i s of ne gl i ge nc e or br e a c h of i mpl i e d wa r r a nt y t o

s ubs e que nt pur c ha s e r s de s pi t e l a c k of pr i vi t y) ; Le i gh v. Wa ds wor t h,

361 P. 2d 849 ( Okl a . 1961) ( l a c k of pr i vi t y doe s not ba r r e c ove r y

a ga i ns t bui l de r f or c ondi t i ons i mme di a t e l y da nge r ous ) ; Te r l i nde v.

Neel y, 275 S. C. 395, 271 S. E. 2d 768 ( 1980) ( s ubs e que nt pur c ha s e r s

ma y as s e r t a cl a i m f or l a t e nt de f ect s unde r ei t he r i mpl i e d wa r r a nt y

or ne gl i ge nc e t he or i e s ) ; Moxl e y v. La r i me e Bui l de r s , I nc . , 600 P. 2d

733 ( Wyo. 1979) ( s ubs e que nt pur c ha s e r s ma y s ue f or br e a c h of i mpl i e d

wa r r a nt y as we l l as s t a t e a cl a i m i n ne gl i ge nce) .

We do not be l i e ve t ha t pe r mi t t i ng a c t i ons a ga i ns t bui l de r s

ba s e d on ne gl i ge nc e wi l l s ubj e c t t he m t o undue ha r ds hi ps . The the

Ge ne r a l As s e mbl y ha s i mpos e d a f our ye a r s t a t ut e of l i mi t a t i on on
8

ma i nt a i ni ng a c t i ons a ga i ns t de ve l ope r s . Te nn. Code Ann. § 28- 3-

202. Thi s l i mi t a t i on woul d a ppl y t o c l a i ms ba s e d on ne gl i ge nc e

s uc h as t ha t pr e s e nt e d i n t hi s cas e .

I t s houl d be e mpha s i z e d t ha t our de c i s i on i s pr e di c a t e d upon

t hi s be i ng a n a c t i on f or ne gl i ge nc e . We do not a ddr e s s whe t he r

r e mot e pur c ha s e r s ha ve a c a us e of a c t i on a ga i ns t de ve l ope r s unde r

a ny ot he r t he or y, a nd e mpha s i z e t ha t unde r t he Di xon cas e onl y t he

i nitia l pur c ha s e r ma y ma i nt a i n a n a c t i on unde r a n i mpl i e d wa rra nt y

t he or y. Nor do we a ddr e s s t he a de qua c y of Pl a i nt i f f s ' pr oof

r e ga r di ng t he a l l e ge d ne gl i ge nc e of t he de f e nda nt s . Howe ve r ,

s umma r y j udgme nt i s onl y t o be r e nde r e d by a t r i a l c our t whe n i t i s

s hown t ha t "t he r e i s no ge nui ne i s s ue as t o any ma t e r i a l f act and

t ha t t he movi ng pa r t y i s e nt i t l e d t o j udgme nt a s a ma t t e r of l a w. "

T. R. C. P. 56. 03. I n r ul i ng on a mot i on f or s umma r y j udgme nt, the

t r i a l c our t a nd t he Cour t of Appe a l s mus t c ons i de r the ma tte r in

t he s a me ma nne r as a mot i on f or a di r ect e d ve r di c t ma de at t he

c l os e of t he pl a i nt i f f ' s pr oof , i.e. , a ll the e vi de nc e mus t be

vi e we d in the light mos t f a vor a bl e t o t he oppone nt of t he mot i on

a nd a ll l e gi t i ma t e c onc l us i ons of f a c t mus t be dr a wn i n f a vor of

t he oppone nt . I t i s onl y whe n t he r e i s no di s put e d i s s ue of

ma t e r i a l f a c t t ha t a s umma r y j udgme nt s houl d be gr a nt e d by t he

t r i a l c our t a nd s us t a i ne d by t he Cour t of Appe a l s . Gr a ve s v.

Anc hor Wi r e Cor p. of Te nne s s e e , 692 S. W. 2d 420 ( Te nn. App. 1985) ;
9

Be nne t t v. Mi d- Sout h Te r mi na l s Cor p. , 660 S. W. 2d 799 ( Te nn. App.

1983) . Summa r y j udgme nt i s ge ne r a l l y i na ppr opr i a t e i n a t or t

a c t i on. Bowma n v. He na r d, 547 S. W. 2d 527 ( Te nn. 1977) . Si nc e we

c onc l ude tha t the pl a i ntif f wa s e ntitle d to ma i nt a i n a n a c tion

a ga i ns t t he de f e nda nt s , i t f ol l ows t ha t s umma r y j udgme nt wa s not

a ppr opr i a t e i n t hi s c a s e .

We r e ve r s e t he j udgme nt of t he t r i a l c our t a nd r e ma nd t he

caus e t o t he t r i a l c our t f or s uc h ot he r a nd f ur t he r a c t i on t ha t ma y

be r e qui r e d i n c onf or mi t y wi t h t hi s opi ni on. Cos t s a r e t a xe d t o

t he appe l l ees .

______________________________

 Don T. Mc Mur r a y, J .

CONCUR:

___________________________________

Hous t on M. Godda r d, Pr e s i di ng J udge

___________________________________

Cha r l e s D. Sus a no, J r . , J udge
I N THE COURT OF APPEALS

RI CHARD BRI GGS a nd ) KNOX CI RCUI T

STEPHANI E R. BRI GGS, ) C. A. NO. 03A01- 9603- CV- 00115

 )

 )

 Pl a i ntif f s - Appe lla nt s )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

vs . ) HON. DALE C. WORKMAN

 ) J UDGE

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

RI VERSOUND LI MI TED PARTNERSHI P, ) REVERSED AND REMANDED

WI LLI AM S. NI X d/ b/ a WSN )

ENTERPRI SES, GENERAL PARTNER, )

a nd DARYL WAGNER, )

 )

 De f e nda nt s - Appe l l ees )

ORDER

Thi s appeal came on t o be he a r d upon t he r e c or d f r om t he

Ci r c ui t Cour t of Knox Count y, br i e f s a nd a r gume nt of c ouns e l . Upon

c ons i de r a t i on t he r e of , t hi s Cour t i s of t he opi ni on t ha t t he r e wa s

r e ve r s i bl e e r r or in the tr i a l c our t .

We r e ve r s e t he j udgme nt of t he t r i a l c our t a nd r e ma nd t he

caus e t o t he t r i a l c our t f or s uc h ot he r a nd f ur t he r a c t i on t ha t ma y
11

be r e qui r e d i n c onf or mi t y wi t h t hi s opi ni on. Cos t s ar e t a xe d t o

t he appe l l ees .

 PER CURI AM