Court Opinion

ID: 9627087
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:33:31.579097+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:38.597344
License: Public Domain

THOMAS, Justice,
dissenting.
I must dissent from the disposition of this case. The majority, almost expressly, invokes the strict liability theories of the Uniform Commercial Code, §§ 34-21-101 to -1002, W.S.1977, and applies those remedies to real property. The definition of goods in the Uniform Commercial Code obviously excludes realty. Section 34-21-205, W.S.1977. Nevertheless, citing authority that uses the Uniform Commercial Code as a point of reference, the majority adopts the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, as found in Section 34-21-232, W.S.1977, even though the authority relied upon does not go beyond the implied warranty of merchantability found in Section 34-21-231, W.S.1977. This interjection is demonstrated by the focus in the majority opinion upon the inability to finish the basements as living areas.
The result in this case goes far beyond the warranty of habitability as it has been adopted in this jurisdiction in Moxley v. Laramie Builders, Inc., 600 P.2d 733 (Wyo.1979), and Tavares v. Horstman, 542 P.2d 1275 (Wyo.1975). Liability is imposed upon the builder-vendor even though that firm was found not to have been negligent. Liability in the absence of negligence, by definition, is strict liability.
The difficulty I have with this resolution is that it does make the builder-vendor an insurer of the construction of the house. Given this potential for strict liability, the builder-vendor, not because of negligence and not because of contract, since normally the home will have been accepted by the purchaser, will be forced to attend to, and repair, even the most minute defects. It will be uniformly less expensive to do that than to attempt to defend a lawsuit in order to demonstrate that the defect would not come within these new theories. The net effect, of course, is to enhance the cost of residences. I perceive that to be unfortunate during a period in the economic history of this nation in which it is becoming more and more difficult for young parents to finance the purchase of homes in which to raise their families.
In my opinion, the remedies developed in our prior cases are adequate to prevent overreaching on the part of the builder-vendor, and it is unnecessary to expand his liability to this degree. I would reverse the judgment because it was premised upon an erroneous rule of law.