Opinion ID: 1979656
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Negligent Failure to Disclose, Failure to Warn, Concealment and Misrepresentation[7]

Text: The petitioners aver that, in addition to the respondents' negligent conduct in manufacturing automobiles with defective seatbacks, the respondents also negligently misrepresented the existence of the defect in the class automobile seatbacks to the general public. The following elements are required to assert a claim for negligent misrepresentation: (1) the defendant, owing a duty of care to the plaintiff, negligently asserts a false statement; (2) the defendant intends that his statement will be acted upon by the plaintiff; (3) the defendant has knowledge that the plaintiff will probably rely on the statement, which, if erroneous, will cause loss or injury; (4) the plaintiff, justifiably, takes action in reliance on the statement; and (5) the plaintiff suffers damage proximately caused by the defendant's negligence. Virginia Dare Stores v. Schuman, 175 Md. 287, 291-92, 1 A.2d 897, 899 (1938); Martens Chevrolet, Inc. v. Seney, 292 Md. 328, 336-37, 439 A.2d 534, 539 (1982); Gross v. Sussex, Inc., 332 Md. 247, 256, 630 A.2d 1156, 1161 (1993). See generally RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS ง 522 (1977). [8] The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the negligent misrepresentation count on the same grounds that it dismissed the negligence and strict liability counts, [9] because there had been no actual injury and no allegation of such injury. Our cases make it clear that a plaintiff is not required to suffer personal physical injury to recover under a theory of negligent misrepresentation. Martens, supra, 292 Md. at 335-36, 439 A.2d at 538-39 (1982) (holding that pecuniary loss is compensable under an action for negligent misrepresentation, citing Brack v. Evans, 230 Md. 548, 187 A.2d 880 (1963)). To that end, the Court in Village of Cross Keys v. Gypsum, 315 Md. at 754, 556 A.2d at 1132 stated: Although Whiting-Turner concerned negligent conduct, similar principles apply when negligent misrepresentation is involved. See Restatement (Second) of Torts ง 311 comment a (1965), noting that the rule pertaining to negligent misrepresentation involving the risk of physical harm represents a somewhat broader liability than the rule relating to liability for pecuniary loss resulting from negligent misrepresentation. Under this reasoning, therefore, economic losses qualify as a cognizable injury under negligent misrepresentation. [10]