LindsayDenton’s case is valid. It within her right the best professionalservices from inspectors. All homeowners and potential homeownersdepend on the professional consultancy and recommendations of homeinspectors to make sound decisions about the condition of theirhomes. A report of an inspector should be as professional andaccurate as possible because it has significant implications on thequality of life they would have inside the premises. However, thereis a legal challenge for her in terms of securing compensation fromthe civil claim she filed. Lindsay faces two major predicaments toher lawsuit: (1) the lawsuit will require another home inspector totestify so that the court can make the decision based on it.Considering that most professional associations forbid their membersagainst engaging in activities that would work against theprofessional reputation of the profession. (2) Associations do nothave the contractual capacity that the law grants incorporated bodies(Silverman, 2005).Thus, Lindsay Denton may have sued inspector Christopher Stockdale inhis personal capacity, the association with which he is affiliatedmay not provide evidence of her claims that Stockdale used binocularsto inspect the house.
LindsayDenton can prove her case by taking another inspection report to thecourt. All that she needs to prove is that inspector ChristopherStockdale did not follow the procedures set out by the associationand the burden and risk of negligence falls upon him. Furthermore,she also needs to demonstrate the gravity of the inspector’s reporton influencing the decision of the insurer(Symmons, 2011).Inspector Christopher Stockdale must also have strong defense againstLindsay’s claims of the negligence. Inspectors are professionalswhose knowledge is needed to ensure that home owners live in safehomes. Writing a report that violates professional expectationsattracts litigations such as this. Considering that the matter is incourt, inspector Stockdale faces the possibility of licensewithdrawal and compensating Lindsay if her lawsuit succeeds.
Consideringthat the case is about proving negligence, Lindsay’s case wouldpossibly be handled in the scope of a variety of legal theories thatconstitute negligence (Van der Smissen, 2007). The negligence mustconstitute a subtle element of breach of contract that actuallycaused the damages she claims.
Theelement of duty
Lindsaymust demonstrate to the court that inspector Christopher Stockdaleowed duty to her. The duty he owes her is definitive by the terms ofthe contract or the standard of care of home inspectors. It is clearin common law that every professional or person with a responsibilityto another person exercises ordinary care so that foreseeable risksare avoided. The real challenge is that most state laws do not havespecific additional duties that inspectors must fulfill in theirexecution of duties.
Thepossible aspect of Lindsay’s lawsuit that may work in her advantageis that inspector Stockdale will have to write a thorough summary ofthe report of his inspection highlighting what he observed as defectsand the necessary advice he might have offered her. Unfortunately,his earlier report stated that the house was in the right condition.Reading a contradictory summary before the court would actually provehis guilt.
AsLindsay states, she has spent more on having the house fixed hence,she has lost revenue for eighteen months. The inspector’snegligence actually caused the damages.
Indeedthe case has the burden of proof, but can possibly take advantage ofthe many loopholes in inspector Stockdale’s conduct. Indeed, homeowners have a responsibility to ensure that the reports of inspectorsare accurate. Inspectors should also not take advantage of the legalweaknesses to breach their duty of properly inspecting structures andwriting accurate reports.
Silverman,I. (2005). Nonreactive methods and the law. AmericanPsychologist,30(7),764.
Symmons,C. R. (2011). The Duty of Care in Negligence: Recently ExpressedPolicy Elements—Part I. TheModern Law Review,34(4),394-409.
Vander Smissen, B. (2007). Elements of negligence. Lawfor recreation and sport managers,36-45.