of care to third parties where there is no privity relationship. Courts in other jurisdictions do appear to impose a duty on real estate appraisers in the' absence of privity of contract. See, e.g., Perpetual Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n v. Porter & Peck, 80 Ohio App.3d 569, 609 N.E.2d 1324, 1326 (1992) (imposing a duty on appraisers under Section 552 of the Restatement of Torts when the party suing was expected to rely on the representation of the appraiser); First State Savings Bank v. Albright & Associates of Ocala, Inc., 561 So.2d 1326, 1329 (Fla.App.1990) (“[W]e adopt section 552 as setting forth the circumstances under which an appraiser may be held liable for his negligence to third parties in the absence of privity.”); Costa v. Neimon, 123 Wis.2d 410, 366 N.W.2d 896, 899 (1985) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiff articulates a viable argument that
holding that the basis of liability is negligence and not injury recognizing cause of action for products liability in the absence of privity of contract in light of the foreseeable risk of harm caused by defective automobiles recognizing an exception to the general rule that the patients conduct prior to treatment should not be considered in assessing damages holding that comparative negligence applies when the plaintiffs negligence is a legally contributing cause of his harm if but only if it is a substantial factor in bringing about his harm and there is no rule restricting his responsibility for it holding that a change in the law of sentencing does not constitute a new factor holding that the absence of privity does not constitute a policy reason for not imposing liability where negligence is a substantial factor in causing the harm alleged