AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves the Plaintiff-Appellant, an insurance company, and involuntary Plaintiffs-Appellants, against the Defendant-Appellee, a real estate broker. The dispute centers around the Defendant's alleged involvement in the removal of a washer and dryer from a property, which led to the Plaintiffs seeking damages. The Defendant was a signatory to a purchase agreement that included duties of honesty and reasonable care as a broker. Plaintiffs presented evidence suggesting the Defendant's involvement in the removal of the appliances exceeded merely communicating the buyers' wishes.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that the Defendant had a duty of care which was breached by his involvement in the removal of the washer and dryer, presenting circumstantial evidence including a handwritten note and a check from the Defendant's account.
• Defendant-Appellee: Contended that no duty of care existed under the circumstances and that his involvement was limited to communicating the buyers' desire for the removal of the appliances. He argued that such conduct did not constitute a breach of duty.

Legal Issues

• Whether a duty of care existed under the circumstances presented in this case.
• Whether the Defendant breached any duty of care owed to the Plaintiffs.

Disposition

• The award of summary judgment in favor of the Defendant was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Reasons

• The Court, led by Judge Michael D. Bustamante with concurrence from Chief Judge Celia Foy Castillo and Judge Linda M. Vanzi, found that a general duty of care exists which requires every person to exercise ordinary care for the safety of others. This duty was applicable to the Defendant due to his professional role and the express incorporation of duties in the purchase agreement. The Court also found that the question of whether the Defendant breached this duty is generally a question of fact, making it unsuitable for summary judgment. The Court disagreed with the Defendant's contention that his involvement was limited and found that the circumstantial evidence presented by the Plaintiffs suggested a more significant role in the removal of the appliances. The Court concluded that the evidence was susceptible to reasonable conflicting inferences, making summary judgment inappropriate at this stage.