Court Opinion

ID: 9531652
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:13:41.555409+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:33.428301
License: Public Domain

NEAL, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent for the following reasons. The holding here is an extension of the rule regarding privity. The existing exception of the abolishment of privity where personal injuries are concerned is *334based in humanitarian principles. Fault in this case is traced directly to the Barnes, who requested the precise installation and even executed a release therefor. The manner of the installation was for their own benefit, and it was neither hidden, inherently dangerous, nor health- or life-threatening. Over seven years later, after the home was sold to others, the valve failed, causing damage. Responsibility, if any, for the damage rests with Barnes, not the protesting workman. No justifiable reason exists to extend the exception on the facts of this case.