Opinion ID: 1168818
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Homeowners' Cause Against the Builder

Text: [1] Appellant Wisler initially contends that the judgment as to his liability should be reversed since he was not found to be chargeable with misrepresentation or fraudulent concealment, and he is thus protected by the doctrine of caveat emptor as applied to real property. However, since Wisler's liability is predicated solely upon negligence in the construction of the dwelling, rather than upon alleged misrepresentation or any implied warranty, it does not appear that the doctrine of caveat emptor has any application to the instant action. (See Ferguson v. Koch, 204 Cal. 342, 345 [268 P. 342, 58 A.L.R. 1176]; 8 Thompson, Real Property (1940) § 4599.) That defendant Wisler is liable to the homeowners herein for his negligence in constructing the dwelling upon an improperly compacted lot follows from our holding in Stewart v. Cox, 55 Cal.2d 857, 860, 863 [13 Cal. Rptr. 521, 362 P.2d 345]. In the Stewart case a subcontractor who negligently installed the gunite concrete material in a swimming pool, causing water to escape which damaged the swimming pool itself, the surrounding yard, and the house, was held liable for the homeowners' damages. [2] We stated in Stewart that whether in a specific situation a defendant will be held liable for negligence causing harm to the property of another is a matter of policy and involves the balancing of various factors, among which are the extent to which the transaction was intended to affect the plaintiff, the foreseeability of harm to him, the degree of certainty that he suffered injury, the closeness of the connection between the defendant's conduct and the injury suffered, and the policy of preventing future harm. (55 Cal.2d at p. 863.) [3] Applying the foregoing principles to the instant situation, it appears that while this house was not constructed with the intention of ownership passing to these particular plaintiffs, the Sabellas are members of the class of prospective home buyers for which Wisler admittedly built the dwelling. Thus as a matter of legal effect the home may be considered to have been intended for the plaintiffs, and Wisler owed them a duty of care in construction. (See Prosser, Torts (2d ed. 1955) § 36, pp. 166-168.) It is apparent that harm was foreseeable to prospective owners when the home was constructed upon the inadequately compacted earth in the lot, and it is undisputed that the Sabellas' home was seriously damaged. Also, there was found to be a close connection between the negligent elements of workmanship for which defendant contractor must be held responsible, including the placement of the foundation of the house upon loose fill, the laying of the sewer pipe upon an insufficiently firm footing plus the possible improper closure of certain joints in that pipe, and the injury suffered. As the general contractor Wisler is held responsible for the defectively laid plumbing even though the work might have been completed by a subcontractor. ( Dow v. Holly Manufacturing Co., 49 Cal.2d 720, 725-728 [321 P.2d 736].) The trial court expressly found that the defective plumbing installation permitted the water infiltration which in turn caused the rapid consolidation of the unstable earth, leading to the damage to the dwelling. Finally, the prevention of future negligent construction of buildings upon insufficiently supportive material would not be furthered by exempting defendant Wisler from liability for his negligence. (See Biakanja v. Irving, 49 Cal.2d 647, 651 [320 P.2d 16, 65 A.L.R.2d 1358]; see also Buist v. C. Dudley De Velbiss Corp., 182 Cal. App.2d 325, 329 [6 Cal. Rptr. 259].) Defendant Wisler attempts to distinguish the instant factual situation from that in Stewart v. Cox, supra, 55 Cal.2d 857, in that damage to property other than the swimming pool there involved was foreseeable, and he argues that the only harm foreseeable herein was damage to the house itself. But the plaintiffs in the Stewart case recovered for damages to the swimming pool as well as for the damaged surrounding property. (See 55 Cal.2d at pp. 860, 866-867.) Also, in Bause v. Anthony Pools, Inc., 205 Cal. App.2d 606, 609-610 [23 Cal. Rptr. 265], the plaintiff property owner recovered damages from the defendant contractor for the full cost of reconstructing a swimming pool that was improperly made and not usable, and one of the successful theories of recovery was that `defendant designed and construed [the swimming pool] in a careless and negligent manner.' Moreover, we indicated in the Stewart case that the liability of a contractor should be determined by the consideration and weighing of the various factors bearing upon liability hereinbefore discussed, rather than by resort to special rules or distinctions. (See 55 Cal.2d at p. 863.) A further contention by the contractor is that imposition upon him of liability for his negligence in construction is contrary to the holding in Wyatt v. Cadillac Motor Car Division, 145 Cal. App.2d 423, 426 [302 P.2d 665]. In the Wyatt case an automobile manufacturer was held exempt from liability to the purchaser of an automobile for the negligent placement of an obstruction within the motor, causing ruin of the engine. It was there stated: [D]efendant's duty was confined to the exercise of reasonable care to see that the car was so manufactured and assembled as to be free from defects which might be reasonably expected to produce bodily injury or damage to other property. (Emphasis added.) (145 Cal. App.2d at p. 426.) A result similar to that in Wyatt was reached in Fentress v. Van Etta Motors, 157 Cal. App.2d Supp. 863, 866 [323 P.2d 227], where it was additionally held that in order for liability to be imposed an accident must have resulted involving some violence or collision with external objects. However, the Wyatt and Fentress cases must be deemed inconsistent with Stewart v. Cox, supra, 55 Cal.2d 857, 861-863, and hence disapproved, to any extent that those cases might be applied to contractors as distinguished from conventional manufacturers of goods. As noted above, the plaintiffs in Stewart recovered for damages to the swimming pool itself, the manufactured article there involved, and no violent accident occurred. (See 55 Cal.2d at p. 860, 866-867; Civ. Code, § 1714; see also 32 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 197, 200, 202-203; 69 Yale L.J. 1099, 1102-1103.) Defendant Wisler's final contention is that if the judgment against him is allowed to stand, builders of structures will be liable to the original purchaser and to subsequent owners for any and all deterioration in the structures attributable to negligent workmanship. However, imposition of liability upon Wisler for his negligence resulting in the fundamental defect here involved, causing reduction in the value of the house by nearly 50 per cent, does not necessarily presage a contractor's liability for any and all imaginable defects in construction.