Opinion ID: 2633080
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Summary Judgment on the Duty to Inspect

Text: [¶10] Mrs. Hendricks' first claim against the Hurleys rested in part on an alleged duty to inspect their property for dangerous conditions. In Landsiedel v. Buffalo Properties, LLC, 2005 WY 61, ¶ 9, 112 P.3d 610, 613 (Wyo. 2005), the district court refused to give the following jury instruction: The owner of a business has a duty to visitors to use reasonable care to prevent or correct dangerous conditions on the premises. This duty includes the duty to inspect the premises to discover possible dangerous conditions, of which the owner does not know, and to take reasonable precautions to protect users of the premises from dangers which are foreseeable from the condition or use of the property. On appeal, this Court upheld the district court's ruling because the instruction imposed on premises owners a duty to inspect  a duty that has never been recognized in Wyoming. Id., ¶ 20, 112 P.3d at 615. To the extent that Mrs. Hendricks' claim against the Hurleys rested on a duty to inspect, no such duty exists in Wyoming and the Hurleys were entitled to summary judgment. [¶11] It is clear from the record, however, that Mrs. Hendricks' claim involved more than a duty to inspect. In her complaint and throughout the proceedings, she has alleged that the Hurleys owed a duty of reasonable care to those invited onto their property and that they breached this duty by allowing a dangerous condition to exist. She asserts that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the Hurleys exercised reasonable care to discover the dangerous condition. [¶12] Our cases clearly establish that in Wyoming a premises owner must use ordinary care to keep the premises in a safe condition and is charged with an affirmative duty to protect visitors against dangers known to him and dangers discoverable with the exercise of reasonable care. Rhoades v. K-Mart Corp., 863 P.2d 626, (Wyo. 1993). Under this standard, Mrs. Hendricks was required to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact showing either that the Hurleys had actual notice of the danger created by the improper wiring or that with the exercise of reasonable care they would have discovered the danger. [¶13] The evidence presented, viewed in the light most favorable to Mrs. Hendricks, showed that the Hurleys purchased the property in 2003, just over a year before the incident giving rise to Ryan's death. At the time they purchased the home, the Hurleys were living in California. Mrs. Hurley had seen the house once but neither she nor Mr. Hurley had the opportunity to look it over thoroughly before they purchased it. For that reason, and because they had spent most of their lives in California and were not familiar with the issues facing Wyoming homeowners, the Hurleys wanted someone local to perform a complete inspection of the home. Neither of them had ever lived in a home with a well prior to moving to Wyoming. [¶14] Because the Hurleys were in California and the Hendricks lived in Cheyenne, the Hendricks assisted the Hurleys with the purchase of the home. Mr. Hendricks had the power of attorney to act for his mother and step-father with respect to the purchase and appeared at the closing on their behalf. Mrs. Hendricks worked in the mortgage department of a federal credit union and was experienced with the sale and purchase of homes and conventional loans. She helped the Hurleys with various aspects of the purchase, including, at Mrs. Hurley's request, finding someone to perform a full inspection of the home. Mrs. Hendricks testified that full home inspections were not required in Wyoming and were not normally part of the process of purchasing a new home. However, because Mrs. Hurley wanted a full inspection performed, Mrs. Hendricks asked her assistant to obtain the names of home inspectors who might be available to conduct the inspection. Her assistant obtained some names and, after speaking with Mrs. Hendricks, contacted an inspector who performed a complete inspection of the home. [¶15] The Hurleys believed the full inspection included an inspection of the well. Although the cover page of the completed inspection form stated that the well was not part of the inspection, the Hurleys testified they were not aware until after Ryan's death that the well was not inspected before they purchased the home. The Hurleys had no work done on the well before Ryan's death. Mr. Hurley testified that the prior owners had not mentioned having the well serviced at any time. There simply is no evidence that the Hurleys knew or should have known of any problems with the well wiring before Ryan was injured. [¶16] Mrs. Hendricks asserts in her brief that there was evidence from which the Hurleys should have discovered the unsafe condition. She claims the proximity of the hydrant to the [well casing] pedestal, the polarity of the electrical system, [and] the visible electrical connections all indicated that there was an issue involving the safety of the premises. She also claims that the Hurleys would have known the home inspection did not include the well if they had read the inspection report and this fact creates a jury question as to whether they exercised reasonable care. [¶17] In Goodrich v. Seamands, 870 P.2d 1061 (Wyo. 1994), a woman was struck by a falling ceiling tile and fan as she entered the restroom in a building leased to the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW). She claimed the building owners had reason to know of defects that caused the tile and fan to come loose because there was evidence that ceiling tiles in other areas of the building occasionally came loose when doors were shut; the owners hired the person who installed the tiles and were charged with the same knowledge he had of the defects; and the owners were required to maintain the common areas of the leased building and had owned the building for twelve years. We said: Essential to any negligence cause of action is proof of facts which impose a duty upon defendant. The question of the existence of a duty is a matter of law for the court to decide. A duty exists where, upon the facts in evidence, such a relation exists between the parties that the community will impose a legal obligation upon one for the benefit of the other  or, more simply, whether the interest of the plaintiff which has suffered invasion was entitled to legal protection at the hands of the defendant. Id. at 1064. [¶18] Applying these principles, we concluded that evidence showing the owner knew ceiling tiles in rooms other than the women's restroom occasionally moved was not sufficient to show that a reasonable person should have known that the ceiling tile and fan in the women's bathroom were improperly installed. We also concluded that the installer's possible knowledge of defects did not demonstrate that a reasonable person in the owners' position should have known of the defects. In light of the evidence that there were no problems with the restroom tile or fan during the twelve years the owners owned the building, we further concluded that the period of ownership and the fact that the lease required the owners to maintain common areas did not establish that they should have known of the defects. We said: Necessary to every negligence action is proof that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty. In this case the Seamandses had a duty to disclose only if they knew or had reason to know of the defects. Goodrich failed, however, to establish that the Seamandses had either actual or constructive knowledge of the defects and, therefore, failed to establish a duty to disclose the defective ceiling, fan and ducting. The failure to prove duty, which is a question of law, makes summary judgment in favor of the defendants, the Seamandses, proper. Id. at 1065. [¶19] By the same token, the Hurleys had a duty to disclose only if they knew or had reason to know of the defects. Other than her own assertions, Mrs. Hendricks presented no admissible evidence that the hydrant's proximity to the well, the polarity of the electrical system or the visible electrical connections would have put a reasonable person on notice that the wiring underneath the well cap was faulty. The electrician who inspected the well after Ryan's death discovered the problem when he removed the well cap and inspected the wiring inside. Absent evidence that the Hurleys knew or had reason to know of the danger created by the well wiring, Mrs. Hendricks cannot establish that they owed a duty giving rise to a negligence claim. In light of the failure to prove a duty, the district court properly granted summary judgment for the Hurleys on Mrs. Hendricks' first negligence claim.