stating that “the representation need not be made with knowledge of actual falsity, but need only be an assertion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who has no reasonable ground for believing it to be true ....”
How later courts described this case
- stating that “the representation need not be made with knowledge of actual falsity, but need only be an assertion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who has no reasonable ground for believing it to be true ....”
- holding that “negligent misrepresentation a form of deceit” and disapproving cases holding that “scienter is an essential element”
- a professional engineer is usually not liable in the absence of negligence or intentional misconduct
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SHENK, Acting C. J.
I dissent. I would affirm the judgment on the ground that under the facts of this case the detriment suffered by the plaintiffs is, as stated by Mr. Justice Schauer in his dissent, “the additional amount they were compelled to expend to obtain what both plaintiffs and defendant had contemplated they should obtain.”
Respondents ’ petition for a rehearing was denied November 17, 1954. Shenk, J., and Schauer, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.