B & L Service Co., Inc. v. Gerson, 66061
| Decision Date | 06 September 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 66061,66061 |
| Citation | 307 S.E.2d 262,167 Ga.App. 679 |
| Parties | B & L SERVICE COMPANY, INC. v. GERSON. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Bobby L. Cobb, Doraville, for appellant.
Stanton J. Shapiro, Sharon R. Clutteur, Atlanta, for appellee. POPE, Judge.
Appellant B & L Service Company, Inc. brought this action against appellee Edwin S. Gerson to recover the balance due on a contract to install a heating and air conditioning system in appellee's new home. Appellee counterclaimed for damages for breach of contract and negligent and defective installation and for punitive damages. Following a trial on the merits, the trial court directed a verdict in favor of appellant on the issue of punitive damages, and the jury returned a verdict in the amount of $5,049.78 in favor of appellee on his counterclaim. Appellant brings this appeal following the entry of the judgment on the verdict and the denial of its motion for new trial.
1. Appellant lists three enumerations of error challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, one being the denial of its motion for directed verdict. In reviewing both the overruling of a motion for directed verdict and the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, this count will apply the "any evidence" test. Speir v. Williams, 146 Ga.App. 880(1, 2), 247 S.E.2d 549 (1978). That is, where the evidence does not demand a particular finding, a directed verdict is not warranted; where there is some evidence to support the verdict, this court will not interfere with it. Construed most favorably to appellee, the evidence at trial showed that the work performed by appellant was not in compliance with the contract provision providing that the work would be performed "in the highest workmanlike manner possible...." The evidence disclosed numerous instances of poor workmanship and also improper utilization of materials. Further, no final inspection of the work was performed and the manufacturer's warranty on the system was not in effect. Appellee provided testimony as to the costs he had incurred in investigating and correcting certain deficiencies in the installation of the system and also as to the costs of additional work necessary so that the manufacturer would honor the warranty. Based on this evidence, the trial court properly denied appellant's motion for directed verdict, and the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict. Thus, appellant's enumerations Nos. 1, 5 and 6 are without merit.
2. Appellant's second enumeration cites as error the trial court's admitting two documents into evidence over its hearsay objection. The documents contain surveys of the subject heating and air conditioning system made by two contractors other than appellant. These surveys recommend various modifications to the system installed by appellant. The trial court admitted both documents solely for the purpose of explaining appellee's conduct in not paying the balance due pursuant to the subject contract and so instructed the jury. Under this circumstance, the trial court did not err in admitting the documents over appellant's hearsay objection. OCGA § 24-3-2 (Code Ann. § 38-302). See Bodrey v. Bodrey, 246 Ga. 122(2), 269 S.E.2d 14 (1980). See generally Momon v. State, 249 Ga. 865, 294 S.E.2d 482 (1982).
3. Appellant next enumerates as error "allowing appellee's witness, a design engineer, to give his opinion as to the standard of care required of a heating and air conditioning contractor." Our review of the record in this case discloses no objection at trial on this ground. "The point appears here...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barnes v. State
...Ga.App. 358, 359(1), 411 S.E.2d 98 (1991); Dixon v. Williams, 177 Ga.App. 702, 704, 340 S.E.2d 286 (1986); B & L Svc. Co. v. Gerson, 167 Ga.App. 679, 681, 307 S.E.2d 262 (1983) (valuations may be based in whole or in part on hearsay, and this would go to its weight, not admissibility); Hoar......
-
Llop v. McDaniel, Chorey & Taylor, 68092
...is not warranted; where there is some evidence to support the verdict, this court will not interfere with it." B & L Svc. Co. v. Gerson, 167 Ga.App. 679(1), 680, 307 S.E.2d 262. Here, the evidence at trial reflects that at the time of the initial meeting with Mr. McDaniel, defendant was tol......
-
Davis v. Hawkins
...admitting the executrix's value testimony over the appellants' hearsay objections. As this Court recognized in B & L Svc. Co. v. Gerson, 167 Ga.App. 679, 307 S.E.2d 262 (1983), [e]vidence of value is not to be excluded merely because the valuation fixed by the witness as a matter of opinion......
-
Terrell v. Pippart
...wholly or in part upon hearsay, provided the witness has had an opportunity of forming a correct opinion.” B & L Svc. Co. v. Gerson, 167 Ga.App. 679, 681, 307 S.E.2d 262 (1983). See also Four Oaks Properties v. Carusi, 156 Ga.App. 422, 424, 274 S.E.2d 783 (1980), holding that even though ap......