Opinion ID: 874238
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: This Court affirms the district court's grant of summary judgment on the claim of negligence.

Text: The Blackmores challenge the grant of summary judgment in favor of the Defendants on the claim of negligence. The elements of negligence include: duty, breach of that duty, causation, and damages. McKim v. Horner, 143 Idaho 568, 572, 149 P.3d 843, 847 (2006). The district court found that the Defendants did not owe a duty to the Blackmores under the Idaho Code or common law. The Blackmores challenge both findings of the district court. First, the Blackmores challenge the finding of the district court that the Defendants did not owe a duty to the Blackmores under the Idaho Code. Idaho Code § 54-2087, provides: If a buyer or seller enters into a written contract for representation in a regulated real estate transaction, that buyer or seller becomes a client to whom the brokerage and its licensees owe the following agency duties and obligations: . . . . (2) To exercise reasonable skill and care[.] The above duties and obligations are limited by I.C. § 54-2087(7), which provides: Unless otherwise agreed to in writing, a brokerage and its licensees owe no duty to a client to conduct an independent inspection of the property and owe no duty to independently verify the accuracy or completeness of any statement or representation made regarding a property. Unless otherwise agreed to in writing, a brokerage and its licensees owe no duty to conduct an independent investigation of either party's financial ability to complete a real estate transaction. The Blackmores asserted before the district court that it was negligent for the Defendants to assure that a full-panel water test had been performed when in fact one had not. [2] The district court dismissed the Blackmores' claim because it found that the Defendants did not have a duty to conduct an independent inspection of the property. The district court took note of the fact that the Purchase and Sale Agreement allowed the Blackmores to conduct a well inspection, but held that Addendum # 2 eliminated any contingencies on the transaction as the Blackmores agreed to take the property as is. Also, the district court held that as provided under I.C. § 54-2087(7), unless agreed to in writing, a real estate agent is not obligated to conduct an independent inspection of the property, and in this case, no such obligation was reduced to writing. The Blackmores claim that under I.C. § 54-2087, the Defendants did not have an affirmative duty to test the well water. The Blackmores contend, nevertheless, At the point when [Thompson] undertook a voluntary or requested inspection of the water quality on the well servicing the property, [the Defendants] assumed a duty to perform such inspection with due and reasonable care, [sic] and to accurately and truthfully convey the extent and results of the water test to the Blackmores. Secondly, the Blackmores challenge the finding of the district court that the Defendants did not owe a duty of care under common law. The district court dismissed the Blackmores' claim because it found that absent the Purchase and Sale Agreement, the Defendants would not have had a duty to test the well water. In ruling, the court relied upon precedent providing that a tort action may not be brought if the claim would not exist absent a contract. The Blackmores claim that they may bring a common law tort claim because the Defendants had a duty to exercise care regardless of the existence of the Purchase and Sale Agreement. The Blackmores claim that the Defendants owed them a general duty to exercise reasonable care. While the Defendants did not have a duty to perform an independent test of the well water, the Blackmores again assert that once one was voluntarily undertaken, the Defendants owed them a duty under the common law to relay the results of that test with care. This duty, the Blackmores contend, was owed apart from the Purchase and Sale Agreement between the parties. While there may be a question of fact over communications concerning the test, that factual issue is irrelevant because this Court holds that the Defendants did not owe the Blackmores a duty of care under the Idaho Code or common law. The real estate transaction was initially contingent upon the outcome of a well inspection. Nevertheless, before receiving results of the inspection, the Blackmores willingly agreed to the terms of Addendum # 2. Under the Addendum, the Blackmores agreed to eliminate all contingencies and take the property as is. Any duty that possibly could have been owed was eliminated when the Blackmores agreed to the terms of the Addendum. With contingencies removed, it is hard to imagine what the Blackmores had to gain from the well inspection. No matter the result, the Blackmores were obligated to purchase the property. It is important to note that the well inspection was not done until Mio requested it the day before closing. Addendum # 2, on the other hand, was signed by the Blackmore's on September 22, 2005. Obviously, at the time the Blackmore's signed Addendum # 2, they did not know the results of the well inspection and must have disregarded the importance of the inspection when they agreed to take the property as is. The record contains an e-mail from Mrs. Blackmore to Thompson dated September 28, 2005, inquiring about the results of a well test if it ever got done. This e-mail indicates that even after accepting the property as is, Mrs. Blackmore might have been curious about the results, but the use of the phrase if it ever got done indicates that she did not know the results of the test before signing Addendum # 2 and is an indication that the Blackmores disregarded the importance of the test. Moreover, I.C. § 54-2087(7) expressly eliminates a duty. It provides that unless agreed to in writing, the Defendants did not have a duty to conduct an independent test of the well water or verify the accuracy or completeness of the test results. The Defendants did not owe a duty because such an agreement was not memorialized with a written instrument. This Court does not need to assess whether the district court abused its discretion when it struck affidavits because we affirm the dismissal of the negligence claim, which the affidavits sought to establish.