ÿWPC¦ …# VU:a %› 0@¡w@á4! 5 0„D 0DÈ  0J 0T^ 0^² 0h 0rx 0|ê 0†f 0ì 1u| 0dñ U6UB)‹ B´DCÑ AMU*a/‹ƒº D3=v~pvÓî 0@Á AOÆP 0D D/Z B‰˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 <Ô6X9`+"Courier 10cpiX(ù$¡¡Ó  ÓÓ  Ó ºV»D¼V½¾D¿ÀÁDÂÃÓ€©U!3|xÎ(4(3DX$¤¤Ý ƒù!ÝÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d d####7Border 1dd€-%Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial %Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÔ€'ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€'XÔÌÌò òOctober€2,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€'ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó yÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòA€settlement€agreement€was€reached€with€the€Albers,€and€a€voluntaryÏnonsuit€was€entered€against€Don€Duncan,€d/b/a€Frontier€Home€Inspections,€whoÏinspected€the€home€for€the€Briggs€prior€to€their€purchase.óóÌ$$$$'ÿÿdxdPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€"ÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÑ ä ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€çsXXdÈdÈ7ÑÙ€€ÙßL€&(%;+'h|` Å `€€Lß›à@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALSÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌRICHARD€BRIGGS€and€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àKNOXÏCIRCUITÌSTEPHANIE€R.€BRIGGS,€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àC.A.€NO.€03A01„9603„CV„00115Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€Plaintiffs„Appellants€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ìvs.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àHON.€DALE€C.€WORKMANÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àJUDGEÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)ÌœRIVERSOUND›€LIMITED€PARTNERSHIP,€)à àREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDÌWILLIAM€S.€NIX€œd/b/a›€œWSN€›€€€€€€€)ÌENTERPRISES,€GENERAL€PARTNER,€€€)Ìand€DARYL€WAGNER,€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€Defendants„Appellees€€)ÌÌÌÌÌDAVID€N.€œGARST›,€Lewis,€King,€œKrieg›€&€œWaldrop›,€P.C.,€Knoxville€forÏappellant.ÌÌÌDAVID€E.€SMITH,€œHodges›,€Doughty€&€Carson,€Knoxville,€for€Appellee.ÌÌÌÌÌÌÓÓà@ àòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NóóÌÌà€ àMcMurray,€J.ÌÌà àThe€single€issue€in€this€case€is€whether€a€remote€pur‚chaser€Ïof€a€home€may€maintain€œa›€negligence€action€against€the€builder€ofÏthe€home€despite€a€lack€of€contractual€privity.€€The€trial€courtÏgranted€summary€judgment€in€favor€of€the€defendant€and€this€appealÏresulted.€€We€reverse€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€ÌÌà àThe€Plaintiffs,€Dr.€and€Mrs.€Richard€M.€Briggs,€purchased€aÏcondominium€from€the€Defendants,€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Edward€S.€œAlbers›€inÏApril€œ1993.× ƒ) ××  ×›€€Daryl€Wagner€Construction€Co.€built€the€home€in€1989.€ÍThe€condominium€was€a€part€of€a€development€by€Riversound€LimitedÏPartnership,€William€S.€Nix€d/b/a€WSN€Enterprises,€General€Part…ner.€€The€œBriggs'€named€these€parties€as€defendants,€allegingÏnegligence€in€the€construction€administration,€supervision,€in…spection€and€actual€construction€of€the€home.€€Specifically,€theÏplaintiffs€claim€that€their€home€was€damaged€due€to€a€leaky€base…ment,€which€was€caused€by€below€grade€holes€in€the€basement€wallsÏand€the€general€failure€of€the€contractor€to€install€adequateÏwaterproofing€of€the€basement.ÌÌà àThe€Circuit€Court€for€Knox€County€granted€summary€judgment€toÏRiversound€Limited,€WSN€and€Daryl€Wagner€Construction,€findingÏ"that€the€Plaintiffs€have€not€stated€a€cause€of€action€againstÏthese€defendants€because€the€Court€finds€they€owed€no€duty€to€aÏremote€purchaser€of€a€building€they€constructed€to€exercise€dueÏcare€in€the€construction€to€prevent€subsequent€damage€to€or€dete…rioration€of€said€property."ÌÌà àThe€Briggs'›€œappeal›€and€present€the€following€issue€for€ourÏœconsideration:ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓÓà àWhether›€an€owner€of€a€residence€who€lacks€privityÏwith€the€builder€thereof€may€maintain€an€action€againstÏthe€builder€for€negligence€in€the€construction€of€theÏœresidence.Ì›ÌÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓÌà àBecause€the€trial€court€based€its€decision€on€a€question€ofÏlaw,€our€scope€of€review€is€òòde€novoóó€with€no€presumption€of€cor…rectness€for€the€trial€court's€conclusion.€€òòAdams€v.€Dean€RoofingÏCoóó.,€715€S.W.2d€341€(Tenn.€App.€1986);€òòBillington€v.€Crowderóó,€553ÏS.W.2d€590€(Tenn.€App.€1977).ÌÌà àThe€Plaintiffs'€argue€that€since€this€is€a€negligence€claim,Ïprivity€is€not€required€to€maintain€this€action€under€Tennessee'sÏanti„privity€statute,€codified€at€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€29„34„104,€which€states:ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓÓò òPrivity€not€required.€„„ó ó€In€all€causes€of€action€forÏpersonal€injury€or€property€damage€brought€on€account€ofÍnegligence,€strict€liability€or€warranty,€includingÏactions€brought€under€the€provisions€of€the€UniformÏCommercial€Code,€privity€shall€not€be€a€requirement€toÏmaintain€said€œaction.Ì›ÌÌÌÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓà àWe€agree€with€the€Plaintiffs'€contention€that€since€theyÏalleged€property€damage€to€their€home€as€a€result€of€negligence€ofÏthe€defendants,€privity€is€not€required€under€the€statute.€€Al…though€traditionally€this€statute€has€been€associated€with€productÏliability€actions,€its€plain€language€in€no€way€limits€its€appli…cation€in€a€way€that€would€preclude€it€from€being€applied€to€Ïsubsequent€purchasers€of€a€residence.€ÌÌà àThis€Court€has€previously€addressed€this€issue€in€òòRedbudÏCooperative€Corp.€v.€Claytonóó,€700€S.W.2d€551€(Tenn.€App.€1985).€ÏIn€òòRedbudóó,€a€homeowner's€association€and€individual€homeownersÏsued€a€developer€over€drainage€problems.€€The€Court€affirmed€theÏaward€of€damages€against€the€developer€on€a€negligence€theory,Ïeven€though€the€record€showed€that€œsome›€homeowners€were€subsequentÏpurchasers€and€thus€lacked€privity€with€the€developer.€€The€CourtÍfound€œthat›€since€the€judgment€could€be€sustained€based€upon€aÏnegligence€theory,€the€anti„privity€statute€applied.€€òòIdóó.€at€œ559.Ì›Ìà àOur€Supreme€Court€has€recognized€the€existence€of€certainÏimplied€warranties€of€newly€constructed€homes€in€€òòDixon€v.€Moun…tain€City€Construction€Coóó.,€632€S.W.2d€538€(Tenn.€1982).€€TheÏCourt€limited€those€warranties€to€the€initial€œpurchasers€andÏlimited›€to€actions€on€an€implied€warranty€theory.€€This€case,Ïhowever,€is€not€a€warranty€case€but€is€based€upon€negligence.€€InÏview€of€the€anti„privity€statute€set€about€above,€we€see€no€œreason›Ïprivity€should€be€required€to€maintain€an€action€for€negligence.€ÏWe€hold€that€a€subsequent€purchaser€may€maintain€a€negligenceÏaction€against€those€who€constructed€a€residence,€œif›€the€defectsÏclaimed€œto€have›€œcaused›€the€injury€are€latent€ones,€not€known€orÏreasonably€discoverable€to€either€œthe›€previous€owners€or€occupi…ers,€or€the€subsequent€purchaser.€€Since€previous€owners€œmay›€causeÏdamage€that€a€subsequent€purchaser€might€mistakenly€attribute€toÏthe€builder,€or€worsen€a€condition€caused€by€the€builder,€weÏbelieve€it€only€fair€to€require€lack€of€knowledge€œby›€the€previousÍowner€for€the€subsequent€purchasers€to€state€a€claim€for€negli…gence€as€to€the€builder.€€Ì€€Ìà àWe€do€not€believe€that€our€decision€today€œand€that›€in€òòRedbudóóÏœcontradicts€in€any€way›€the€òòDixonóó€case.€€Although€a€claim€of€negli…gence€in€the€construction€of€a€home€is€similar€to€a€claim€under€anÏimplied€warranty,€there€are€differences€that€distinguish€the€two.€ÏThe€Supreme€Court€of€Colorado€discussed€the€differences€betweenÏthe€two€theories€in€òòCosmopolitan€Homes,€Inc.€v.€Welleróó,€663€P.2dÏ1041€(Colo.€1983)€(òòen€bancóó):ÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÌÓÓà àSome€overlap€in€elements€of€proof€of€such€actionsÏmay€occur,€but€the€scope€of€duty€differs€and€the€basisÏfor€liability€is€distinguishable.€€The€implied€warrantyÏof€habitability€and€fitness€arises€from€the€contractualÏrelation€between€the€builder€and€the€purchaser.€€ProofÏof€a€defect€due€to€improper€construction,€design,€orÏpreparation€is€sufficient€to€establish€liability€in€theÏbuilder„vendor.€€Negligence,€however,€requires€that€aÏbuilder€or€contractor€be€held€to€a€standard€of€reason…able€care€in€the€conduct€of€its€duties€to€the€foresee…able€users€of€the€property.€...€Negligence€in€tort€mustÏestablish€defects€in€workmanship,€supervision,€or€designÏas€a€responsibility€of€the€individual€defendant.€€ProofÏof€defect€alone€is€not€enough€to€establish€the€claim.€ÏForeseeability€limits€the€scope€of€the€duty,€and€theÍpassage€of€time€following€construction€makes€causationÏdifficult€to€prove.ÌÌÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓÌòòWelleróó€at€1045€(citations€omitted).ÌÌà àWe€also€find€ample€support€for€our€decision€from€numerousÏother€jurisdictions.€€òòSeeóó€òòBrown€v.€Fowleróó,€279€N.W.2d€907€(S.D.Ï1979)€(subsequent€purchasers€may€state€a€claim€for€negligenceÏagainst€a€builder,€although€implied€warranties€do€not€extendÏbeyond€the€first€purchaser);€òòWright€v.€Creative€Corpóó.,€498€P.2dÏ1179€(Colo.€App.€1972)(subsequent€purchasers€could€maintain€actionÏfor€negligence,€but€not€implied€warranty€of€merchantability);ÏòòCoburn€v.€Lenox€Homes,€Incóó.,€173€Conn.€567,€378€A.2d€599€(1977)Ï(subsequent€purchasers€may€state€a€claim€in€negligence€for€latentÏdefects,€although€the€implied€warranty€does€not€extend€to€them);ÏòòParliament€Towers€Condominium€v.€Parliament€House€Realty,€Incóó.,Ï377€So.2d€976€(Fla.€App.€1979)(privity€not€required€for€negligenceÏaction€against€builder€or€architect,€but€is€required€for€breach€ofÏimplied€warranty);€òòNavajo€Circle,€Inc.€v.€Development€ConceptsÍCorpóó.,€373€So.2d€689€(Fla.€App.€1979)(lack€of€privity€does€notÏaffect€a€tort€claim€so€long€as€the€plaintiff€can€establish€theÏexistence€of€a€duty);€òòSimmons€v.€Owensóó,€363€So.2d€142€(Fla.€App.Ï1978)(subsequent€purchaser€can€maintain€negligence€action€againstÏbuilder€for€latent€defects€not€discoverable€by€reasonable€inspec…tion);€òòMcDonough€v.€Whalenóó,€313€N.E.2d€435€(Mass.€1974)(builder/contractor€may€be€liable€for€injuries€or€damage€caused€by€hisÏnegligence€to€person€with€whom€he€has€no€contractual€relation…ship);€òòKeyes€v.€Guy€Bailey€Homes,€Incóó.,€439€So.2d€670€(Miss.Ï1983)(builder/vendor€may€be€liable€on€basis€of€negligence€orÏbreach€of€implied€warranty€to€subsequent€purchasers€despite€lackÏof€privity);€òòLeigh€v.€Wadsworthóó,€361€P.2d€849€(Okla.€1961)(lack€ofÏprivity€does€not€bar€recovery€against€builder€for€conditionsÏimmediately€dangerous);€òòTerlinde€v.€Neelyóó,€275€S.C.€395,€271ÏS.E.2d€768€(1980)(subsequent€purchasers€may€assert€a€claim€forÏlatent€defects€under€either€implied€warranty€or€negligence€theo…ries);€òòMoxley€v.€Larimee€Builders,€Incóó.,€600€P.2d€733€(Wyo.Ï1979)(subsequent€purchasers€may€sue€for€breach€of€implied€warrantyÏas€well€as€state€a€claim€in€negligence).ÌÌà àWe€do€not€believe€that€permitting€actions€against€buildersÏbased€on€œnegligence›€will€subject€œthem›€to€undue€hardships.€€The€theÏGeneral€Assembly€has€imposed€a€four€year€statute€of€limitation€onÏmaintaining€actions€against€developers.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€28„3„202.€€This€limitation€would€apply€to€claims€based€on€negligenceÏsuch€as€that€presented€in€this€case.ÌÌà àIt€should€be€emphasized€that€our€decision€is€predicated€uponÏthis€being€an€action€for€negligence.€€We€do€not€address€whetherÏremote€purchasers€have€a€cause€of€action€against€developers€underÏany€other€theory,€and€emphasize€that€under€the€òòDixonóó€case€only€theÏinitial€purchaser€may€maintain€an€action€under€an€implied€warrantyÏtheory.€€Nor€do€we€address€the€adequacy€of€Plaintiffs'€proofÏregarding€the€alleged€negligence€of€the€defendants.€€However,Ïsummary€judgment€is€only€to€be€rendered€by€a€trial€court€when€itÏis€shown€that€œ"there›€is€no€genuine€issue€as€to€any€material€factÏand€that€the€moving€party€is€entitled€to€judgment€as€a€matter€ofÏœlaw."›€T.R.C.P.€56.03.€€In€ruling€on€a€motion€for€summary€judgment,Íthe€trial€court€and€the€Court€of€Appeals€must€consider€the€matterÏin€the€same€manner€as€a€motion€for€a€directed€verdict€made€at€theÏclose€of€the€plaintiff's€proof,€òòi.eóó.,€all€the€evidence€must€beÏviewed€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€opponent€of€the€motionÏand€all€legitimate€conclusions€of€fact€must€be€drawn€in€favor€ofÏthe€opponent.€€It€is€only€when€there€is€no€disputed€issue€ofÏmaterial€fact€that€a€summary€judgment€should€be€granted€by€theÏtrial€court€and€sustained€by€the€Court€of€Appeals.€€òòGraves€v.ÏAnchor€Wire€Corp.€of€Tennesseeóó,€692€S.W.2d€420€(Tenn.App.€1985);ÏòòBennett€v.€Mid„South€Terminals€Corp.óó,€660€S.W.2d€799€(Tenn.App.Ï1983).€Summary€judgment€is€generally€inappropriate€in€a€tortÏaction.€€òòBowman€v.€Henardóó,€547€S.W.2d€527€(Tenn.€1977).€€Since€weÏconclude€that€the€plaintiff€was€entitled€to€maintain€an€actionÏagainst€the€defendants,€it€follows€that€summary€judgment€was€notÏappropriate€in€this€case.ÌÌà àWe€reverse€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€and€remand€theÏcause€to€the€trial€court€for€such€other€and€further€action€thatÍmay€be€required€in€conformity€with€this€opinion.€€Costs€are€taxedÏto€the€appellees.ÌÌÓÓà€ à______________________________Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Don€T.€McMurray,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌHouston€M.€Goddard,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€JudgeÌÌÌœÇÑ  ÑÑ7€µïXXdÈXXdÈ7Ñà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALSÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌRICHARD€BRIGGS€and€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àKNOX€CIRCUITÌSTEPHANIE€R.€BRIGGS,€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àC.A.€NO.€03A01„9603„CV„00115Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€Plaintiffs„Appellants€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ìvs.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àHON.€DALE€C.€WORKMANÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àJUDGEÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)ÌRIVERSOUND€LIMITED€PARTNERSHIP,€)à àREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDÌWILLIAM€S.€NIX€d/b/a€WSN€€€€€€€€)ÌENTERPRISES,€GENERAL€PARTNER,€€€)Ìand€DARYL€WAGNER,€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€Defendants„Appellees€€)ÌÌÌ›œÌà@ àò òòòORDERóóó óÌÌÌÓÓà àThis€appeal€came€on€to€be€heard€upon€the€record€from€theÏCircuit€Court€of€Knox€County,€briefs€and€argument€of€counsel.€ÍUpon€consideration€thereof,€this€Court€is€of€the€opinion€thatÏthere€was€reversible€error€in€the€trial€court.Ìà àWe€reverse€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€and€remand€theÏcause€to€the€trial€court€for€such€other€and€further€action€thatÏmay€be€required€in€conformity€with€this€opinion.€€Costs€are€taxedÏto€the€appellees.ÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€PER€CURIAM›