Is there a duty of care to disclose the existence of a latent defect in a sump pump?

There was a defect and it was at least in part latent, in that even a “reasonably careful inspection” (to use the test from Roberts v. Corrigal (supra)) would not have disclosed the nature and extent of the water problem and the extent of remedial stops necessary to control that problem permanently. I accept that a reasonable inspection would have disclosed the presence of the sump pump, and perhaps some of the sources of surface water, such that the defect was in part patent, but it would not have disclosed the magnitude of the problem; a reasonably prudent inspector wouldn’t have known the problem was substantial enough to require only a few days previously two pumps and substantial hoses. The pumping in fact made the problem more latent than it otherwise would have been. 2. If there was a latent defect, was there a duty to disclose its existence?