concluding strict liability doctrine applied to injuries arising after sale of interest in cooperative apartment on ground that transaction was similar to sale of new home to which strict liability doctrine does apply
How later courts described this case
- concluding strict liability doctrine applied to injuries arising after sale of interest in cooperative apartment on ground that transaction was similar to sale of new home to which strict liability doctrine does apply
- holding that each of several subsidiary corporations — which were variously involved in building, owning, and selling a piece of real estate — could be held strictly liable for defects
- accepting "that the law of products liability applies not only to the sale of goods, but also to the sale of newly constructed homes"
- “For it is by now widely accepted that the law of products liability applies ... to the sale of newly constructed homes.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
NEBEKER, Associate Judge,
dissenting:
The thesis of the majority opinion is that one who is a part of the building and selling of homes, or, as the majority puts it, places them “into the stream of commerce,” is liable for damage to the ultimate purchaser which results from defects in the property. Regardless of whether this is an accurate statement of the law in many jurisdictions, I submit that the proposition is wholly inapplicable to this case.
The record shows only that the appellee, Riverview Realty, was a real estate agent for the selling of the cooperative apartment for a company called Watergate Improvement Associates. The record does not show that Riverview was a builder, a seller or a manufacturer. There is absolutely no evi-dentiary support for the majority’s assumption that Riverview was one and the same with the developers and builders of the project. Without evidence of such a connection, Riverview cannot be held liable for product defects on any theory.
Not one of the many cases cited in the majority opinion holds that a real estate broker is liable to purchasers for damage resulting from defects in the real estate or the improvements, nor do I think the majority legitimately could intend to so hold. Nonetheless, given this record and the obvious effort to rule so broadly, that is precisely what the majority is holding. What the consequences of this holding will be on the present and projected efforts to provide housing in the National Capitol, I am not able to say. Surely this decision will come as a shock to those so engaged.
Accordingly, I must dissent.