Share
A Delaware court has considered whether a buyer's representative has an obligation or duty to assure the safety of its clients while showing them the seller's property.
Jerome and Synthia Johnson ("Buyers") retained Scott Venables ("Buyer's Representative") of Coldwell Banker Broadcreek Realty ("Broker") to help them in their property search. The Buyers entered into an agreement to purchase a piece of property owned by Andrew Chupp ("Owner"). Before the transaction closed, the Buyers and the Buyer's Representative inspected the Owner's property. During this inspection, one of the Buyers fell down an unmarked well, allegedly dragging the other buyer down the well with her. The Buyers sued the Owner, the Buyer's Representative, and the Broker seeking compensation for their personal injuries allegedly suffered during the fall down the well. The Buyer's Representative and the Broker filed a motion with the trial court seeking judgment in their favor.
The Superior Court of the State of Delaware, New Castle County, ruled in favor of the Broker and Buyer's Representative. The question before the court was whether buyers' representatives have a duty to assure the safety of their clients while showing them properties. The Buyers based their argument on the fact that there was an agency relationship between the parties. The court looked at the relevant case law in other states, as there were no Delaware cases on this topic. The court found that in some states, a real estate seller's representative has a duty to use reasonable care to inspect the seller's premises and to either make premises safe or warn invitees of a dangerous condition on the premises. Other states have rejected this proposition. However, no state has imposed such a duty upon a buyer's representative.
The court ruled that the Buyer's Representative had no duty to protect the Buyers from dangerous conditions on the Owner's property. The Buyer's Representative had no control over the Owner's property, and so no duty could be imposed upon the Buyer's Representative without such control. The fiduciary duty imposed upon the Buyer's Representative because of the agency relationship between him and the Buyers required disclosure of all material facts to the Buyers, but did not impose a duty to protect the Buyers from elements outside of the Buyer's Representative's control. Thus, the court entered judgment in favor of the Broker and the Buyer's Representative.
Johnson v. Chupp, No. 02-04-304-JEB, 2003 WL 292168 (Del. Super. Ct. Feb. 11, 2003). [This is a citation to a Westlaw document. Westlaw is a subscription, online legal research service. If an official reporter citation should become available for this case, the citation will be updated to reflect this information].