Layman v. Binns
519 N.E.2d 642, 35 Ohio St. 3d 176 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The doctrine of caveat emptor bars a purchaser's action for a structural defect in real estate if the condition is open to observation or discoverable upon reasonable inspection, the purchaser had an unimpeded opportunity to examine the premises, and there is no fraud by the vendor.
Facts:
- The Laymans entered into a contract to purchase a home from the vendors.
- The home had a structural defect in the basement, consisting of a bowed wall.
- The bowed wall was supported by large, visible steel beams.
- Prior to the purchase, Mr. Layman viewed the basement and saw the steel bracing supporting the wall.
- The Laymans had an unimpeded opportunity to inspect the property before the sale.
- The vendors did not disclose the existence of the bowed wall to the Laymans.
- The vendors made no affirmative misrepresentations regarding the condition of the wall.
Procedural Posture:
- The Laymans (purchasers) sued the vendors in the trial court for damages related to a structural defect.
- The trial court found in favor of the Laymans.
- The vendors appealed to the intermediate court of appeals.
- The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of the Laymans.
- The vendors (now appellants) appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the doctrine of caveat emptor bar a home purchaser's recovery against the vendor for a structural defect when the defect was not disclosed but was open to observation upon a reasonable inspection?
Opinions:
Majority - Brown, J.
Yes. The doctrine of caveat emptor bars the purchaser's recovery. For caveat emptor to apply and preclude recovery, three conditions must be met: (1) the defect must be open to observation or discoverable on reasonable inspection, (2) the purchaser must have an unimpeded opportunity to examine the property, and (3) the vendor must not engage in fraud. Here, the defect was open to observation, as the bowed wall and the large steel beams supporting it were obvious and highly visible to witnesses. Second, the Laymans had an unhindered opportunity to inspect the basement and failed to inquire further about the beams they observed. Third, there was no fraud because the vendors did not make any affirmative misrepresentations, and their failure to disclose the defect did not constitute fraudulent concealment. A vendor's duty to disclose only extends to latent defects that are not discoverable upon reasonable inspection; since this defect was discoverable, no such duty arose.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part - Locher, J.
No. The doctrine of caveat emptor should not bar recovery because the observability of a defect is a factual issue that should be determined by the trial court. The majority improperly reweighed the evidence and substituted its judgment for that of the trier of fact, who found the defect was not readily apparent to purchasers like the Laymans. The proper standard for determining whether a defect is discoverable is that of an 'ordinarily prudent person of their station and experience.' The Laymans were inexperienced homebuyers, and it is unreasonable to hold them to the same standard as real estate or construction experts. Given that testimony showed the bow was slight and even the Laymans' agent did not notice it, the trial court's finding that the defect was not discoverable by these specific purchasers was supported by credible evidence and should have been upheld.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the traditional strength of the caveat emptor doctrine in real estate transactions, placing a significant burden of due diligence on the purchaser. The court clarifies that a defect is not 'latent'—which would trigger a seller's duty to disclose—if it is discoverable by a reasonable inspection, regardless of whether the buyer possesses the expertise to understand its significance. This ruling protects sellers from liability for nondisclosure of observable conditions and reinforces the critical importance for buyers to conduct thorough inspections, often with the aid of qualified professionals, before purchasing real property.
