Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, Doekes Gunning Homes, Inc. hired an appellant to conduct a survey for utility easements in preparation for a construction project, relying on a subdivision plat from Paul Lee Consulting Engineering Associates, Inc. Following the construction, Southern Natural Gas informed Doekes that the house was built on its right-of-way, prompting Doekes to file a negligence suit against the appellant. The appellant then filed a cross-claim against Paul Lee Consulting and its principal for negligence in preparing the plat, alleging inaccuracies in easement representations. The appellees moved for summary judgment, arguing the absence of privity and the statute of limitations, supported by affidavits that they were not contracted for precise easement locations. The court granted summary judgment, determining that there was no negligence per se as the statutes required only general easement information and that the appellees did not intend for their plat to induce reliance by other surveyors. The court affirmed the summary judgment, concluding that without evidence of privity, intent to induce reliance, or negligence per se, no liability existed. The appellant's claims of inaccuracies did not establish justifiable reliance, thereby upholding the trial court's decision in favor of the appellees.
Legal Issues Addressed
Induced Reliance and Third-Party Liabilitysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found no liability as the appellees did not intend their plat to induce reliance by other surveyors, and the appellant did not justifiably rely on it.
Reasoning: Appellees did not intend to influence other surveyors regarding the accuracy of the plat, nor is there evidence suggesting that they sought to induce reliance on their representations.
Negligence and Professional Standards in Surveyingsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court evaluated whether the appellees failed to adhere to professional surveying standards by inaccurately depicting easement widths, concluding that the appellees were not negligent per se as the statutes required only general locations.
Reasoning: Appellees violated state and county codes by failing to accurately represent easement dimensions. However, relevant statutes required only that pertinent widths be shown, and since the specific width and location were not deemed pertinent, appellees were not negligent per se.
Privity and Liability to Third Partiessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that liability to a third party requires privity or an intent to induce reliance, neither of which were present between the appellant and appellees.
Reasoning: The appellees sought summary judgment, arguing the claim was barred by the statute of limitations and lacked privity, supported by affidavits indicating they were not contracted to provide precise easement locations.
Summary Judgment Standardssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The trial court granted summary judgment to the appellees, concluding that the appellant's claim lacked evidence of privity, induced reliance, or negligence per se.
Reasoning: The trial court's grant of summary judgment to appellees was therefore appropriate, and the court need not address the statute of limitations claim.