Remember, this is a true case, so you Must Conduct some research and discuss the outcome of the court's decision IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE October 6, 2016 Session CHARLES GROGAN v. DANIEL UGGLA, ET AL. No. M2014-01961-SC-R11-CV Facts and Procedural History The basic facts of this case are simply explained. Before Daniel Uggla purchased a home in Franklin, Tennessee, he, through his brother, hired a home inspector to inspect the house. The home inspector noted problems with the deck flooring of the second story deck but not with the railing. As a condition of the sale, the former homeowners replaced the deck flooring. The contractor who replaced the flooring did not work on the deck railing. During a social gathering hosted by Mr. Uggla after moving into the home, the plaintiff fell from the second story deck when the deck railing collapsed, and he sustained severe injuries. A forensic examination of the railing showed that it had been improperly constructed using interior finishing nails rather than galvanized nails. The plaintiff subsequently filed a complaint against the homeowner, the previous owner, the contractor who had replaced the deck boards, the home builder, and the home inspector. The home inspector and the home inspection franchise are the defendants now before us. In the plaintiffs second amended complaint, he alleged that the defendants knew or in the exercise of reasonable care as a professional inspector should have known that the second floor rear exterior deck railing was constructed with interior finishing nails in violation of local, state[,] and national building codes, and constituted an unreasonable risk of harm since it could not withstand reasonable force to prevent someone from falling from the second floor exterior deck. The plaintiff further alleged that the defendants did not perform a pressure test in order to determine the amount of force that the second floor rear exterior deck railing could have withstood in compliance with applicable building codes. Finally, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants failed to report that the second floor exterior deck railing was negligently constructed in violation of local, state[,] and national building codes and constituted an unreasonable risk of harm and that their negligence caused the plaintiffs injuries. In the course of the litigation, Daniel Uggla testified by deposition that he wanted the property inspected to make sure that everything is okay, up-to-date. If something was not right, I wanted it fixed. . . . [and to] [m]ake sure it was a good buy as well. He testified that after the inspection, his brother told him that the inspector recommend[ed] to change the . . . deck. Said that he didnt have to. But [the inspector] said it looked old . . . . [but] [d]idnt ever say it was dangerous. His brother Mike Uggla testified that he wanted to have an inspection to protect against scenarios of termites . . . carbon monoxide . . . structural damage . . . to make sure youre buying . . . a good quality house. He agreed that he relied on the inspector to tell him what needed to be done. The defendant home inspector testified in his deposition that his job is to provide information to [his] client so that they can make an informed decision about the house that they want to buy. He stated that he did not see any visual damage to the deck railings and that the deck railings felt firm and well anchored. He also stated that if there had been movement, he would have reported it as a safety risk. The defendant home inspector agreed in response to a question on cross-examination that one purpose of a home inspection is to assure the safety of the occupants of the home. In his report, he noted warping on the deck, and as a result the Ugglas requested that the owners of the home have the deck flooring replaced. The defendant home inspector confirmed that he was not a building codes inspector. After filing an answer denying all liability, the defendants moved for summary judgment. In the motion for summary judgment, the defendants characterized the plaintiffs claim as negligent misrepresentation and argued that reliance on the home inspection report was a required component of such a claim, a requirement not met by the plaintiff. The defendants added that as a matter of law, home inspectors do not owe any duty to third parties like Mr. Grogan.