While working on properties, contractors and subcontractors shoulder many responsibilities and perform numerous tasks, and once in a while inevitably take part in the creation of a defect. Fortunately, tort law recognizes that many injuries of defective work done by contractors are the result of them dutifully following the orders and requests of the employing drafter/owner, and chose to assign liability accordingly, saving contractors from legal troubles. (Johnston v. Long, (1943) 56 Cal.App.2d 834, 837; See Johnson v. City of San Leandro, (1960) 179 Cal.App.2d 794, 801.) Still, it is crucial for contractors to recognize this general protection is not accessible in cases where common sense compels a contractor to do better than what the owner paid for, such as in cases dealing with toxic chemicals or features of “abnormally dangerous” nature. (Hale v. Depaoli, (1948) 33 Cal.2d 228, 230.) Liability expanded in the turn of the century, where California courts recognized a theory of negligence that would allow a subsequent purchaser of a property to bring forth a negligence action, even though no privity existed between the two parties. (Krusi v. S.J. Amoroso Construction Co., (2000) 81 Cal. App. 4th 995, 1005-6.) This is because the damage of the negligent work may not occur to the original owner of the property, and instead fall onto the property’s subsequent owner. (Leaf v. City of San Mateo, (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 398, 406.) The basis for such liability is when a third-party plaintiff is injured, and the contractor conducted a transaction that was designed to affect third-party plaintiff, that the transaction created a risk of foreseeable injury due to a certain harm, and that the contractor’s work had a close connection to that foreseeable injury. (Id.) With this new basis for liability, contractors should be especially careful in working on flipping properties, or properties that are being owned and worked on with the intent to be put on sale, a basis for finding the contractor’s work was designed to affect the plaintiff and that the contractor knew of the possible injury that would arise from their negligent performance. (Keru Investments, Inc. v. Cube Co., (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1423.)