Court Opinion

ID: 9863136
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 03:07:49.876331+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:47:42.267106
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Creson,
(concurring).
While I fully agree with the result reached by the majority in the instant case, I can go no farther. The rationale of the majority opinion seems to be that the declaration, met by demurrer, states a cause of action for something designated as “negligent misrepresentation”. For a very long time, misrepresentation has, in this State, constituted a significant part of the law of (1) rescission, (2) reformation, and (3) the cause of action for fraud and deceit. However, I cannot accept the idea that there has ever existed, does now exist, or should ever exist, in Tennessee, any action for alleged “negligent misrepresentation”. This is no more than a vacuous phrase, ap*274parently of academic origin. The words are, in fact, inherently repugnant.
On the other hand, the declaration in the instant case does allege a maintainable cause of action against a surveyor who had contractually assumed the obligation to use reasonable and ordinary care in the performance of his duties. It is equally clear that this surveyor was abundantly aware of the identity of the parties, including this plaintiff, who would inevitably suffer by reason of his negligent performance of the duty assumed.