Buyer's Suit Against Seller for Undisclosed Visible Easement

A buyer, having purchased property with a visible easement for a public utility line that was not explicitly mentioned in the deed, sued the seller for damages, alleging a latent defect because the easement burdened the land's use. The court of appeal upheld the lower court's dismissal of the claim, reasoning that the visible nature of the easement meant the buyer assumed the burden, as they should have noticed it before purchase. The high court quashed this decision, stating that an apparent servitude, though visible, is only excluded from warranty against eviction if it is substantial enough to be considered an easement the buyer must have accepted, and since the mere existence of a utility right-of-way, even if visible, does not automatically equate to the buyer accepting such a burden on the full use of the property, the seller remains liable for warranty unless the buyer was explicitly made aware of or agreed to the specific encumbrance affecting the property's enjoyment.