Court Opinion

ID: 9694319
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 17:36:59.18837+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:59.315828
License: Public Domain

House, C. J.
(dissenting). While I agree that had the trial court correctly determined the issue of liability then there was error on the issue of damages which would require a new trial, I do not *132agree with the court’s conclusion that there was liability and would, therefore, remand the case with direction to enter judgment for the defendants.
I see no basis in the court’s finding for any liability on the grounds of either fraud or misrepresentation and there was clearly no confidential or other relationship between the parties which would support any conclusion of breach of duty on the part of the director of the town’s water and sewer department, the defendant Opalacz. Nor, in my opinion, do the eases cited in the majority opinion support its contrary conclusions. The trial court expressly found that Opalacz did not know how many feet difference there was going to be in the proposed elevation, that he did not intentionally withhold any information from the plaintiff, that he told the plaintiff that the easement and construction maps were available for his inspection, offered to show the maps to him and, most significantly, “told the plaintiff to check the maps.” The plaintiff had full opportunity to know exactly what easement he was granting but, according to the finding, “was busy, he wanted to get it over with and he wanted to settle the matter.” All the facts were open to discovery upon reasonable inquiry by the plaintiff, Opalacz told him to make that inquiry and check the maps, and the plaintiff chose not to do so. I would find no liability on the part of the defendants.
It is unnecessary to comment on the conclusions of the concurring opinion. That opinion is predicated upon a recital of facts which I find unsupported by the court’s finding.
In this dissenting opinion Speziale, J., concurred.