Bradley v. Buck
| Decision Date | 05 June 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 48-72,48-72 |
| Parties | Sidney BRADLEY, d/b/a Pioneer Restaurant v. Donald BUCK and Charles Buck, d/b/a Buck Heating Oils. |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
Thomas F. Koch of Free & Bernasconi, Barre, for plaintiff.
Burgess & Kilmurry, Montpelier, for defendants.
Before SHANGRAW, C. J., and BARNEY, SMITH, KEYSER and DALEY, JJ.
This is an action alleging negligence in the performance of a contract returnable before the District Court of Vermont, Unit No. 5, Washington Circuit. The case was tried by jury on February 8, 1972, resulting in a verdict for the plaintiff of $3,000.00. Judgment was entered thereon and defendants have appealed therefrom.
In March of 1968, and for a period prior thereto, the plaintiff, Sidney Bradley, was the owner and operator of the Pioneer Restaurant in the Town of Northfield, Vermont. Plaintiff lived in a trailer to the rear of the restaurant building. The fuel supply for the premises consisted of two fifty-five gallon tanks.
On March 8, 1968, at the request of the plaintiff, the defendants installed a new 275 gallon fuel oil tank for the purpose of servicing plaintiff's property. On March 9, 1968, it was discovered that one leg supporting the tank had broken through a corrugated mat upon which it was placed. This caused the tank to tip, and an estimated 20-25 gallons of oil was discharged on the ground.
Prior to the oil spillage, plaintiff's water supply consisted of twin dug wells to the rear of his restaurant. Plaintiff testified that his water system was adequate for his restaurant and to his knowledge the wells never ran dry.
Approximately four days after the fuel spillage, plaintiff discovered petroleum contamination in his water supply. He immediately closed the restaurant and had to keep it closed for three days at an estimated loss of $450.00 in profits. Attempts by pumping water from the wells over a period of two weeks or more failed to purify the water supply.
Subsequent to the contamination plaintiff arranged for a temporary water supply from another spring two hundred feet from the restaurant. This could only be used for toilets and dishwashing. Drinking water was carried from a nearby spring by a boy hired by the plaintiff at a cost of $90.00. There was evidence allowing the jury to conclude that it was not economically feasible to convert the temporary spring into a permanent water supply.
In the end, plaintiff drilled an artesian well, installed a pump, tank and pipe system at a total cost of $1,751.90. In support of plaintiff's damages, the foregoing items of $450.00, $90.00, and $1,751.90 were introduced in evidence by the plaintiff without objections by the defendants. This is the limit of plaintiff's proof of damage.
The court, in its charge to the jury, submitted the issue as to whether or not the damages sustained by the plaintiff resulted from the alleged negligent installation of the 275 gallon tank by the defendants. In its comments on the issue of damages, the court generally referred to the cost of installing a new water supply, loss of profits and incidental expenses. No exception was taken by any of the parties to the charge. The jury rendered a verdict of $3,000.00 and judgment was immediately entered thereon.
On appeal the defendants do not disaffirm their negligence. The issues presented only relate to damages awarded by the jury.
Following in conclusion of plaintiff's case, the defendant offered to show the price at which plaintiff sold his restaurant some three and one-half years after the events in question. To this end appears the following statement made by defendants' attorney.
The foregoing was the tenor of defendants' offer of proof made to the trial court. Plaintiff objected to the evidence, and it was excluded by the court.
On appeal it is urged by the defendant that the proper measure of damage should 613 (1971), a comparable situation was premises immediately before and immediately after the injury caused by the defendants. In the case of Bean v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 129 Vt. 278, 282, 276 A.2d 613 (1971e, a comparable situation was present. In that case this Court held that if the injury complained of is temporary in the sense that restoration can cure the harm, the reasonable cost of repair may serve the need and provide adequate and fair compensation. However, if the damage is permanent and beyond full repair, the variance in value of the property before and after the injury often affords the better guide to a just reward.
The new tank was installed on March 8, 1968. The contamination was first...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Lee, 02-512.
...relevance where the probative value of the evidence is ... so slight as to require exclusion as a matter of law." Bradley v. Buck, 131 Vt. 368, 371, 306 A.2d 98, 101 (1973). ¶ 22. In ruling on the motion to exclude, the trial court stated that it did not "feel that it's that speculative; th......
-
State v. Shaw, 86-033
...373, 374, 449 A.2d 936, 937 (1982)). Rulings on remoteness lie largely within the discretion of the trial judge. Bradley v. Buck, 131 Vt. 368, 371, 306 A.2d 98, 101 (1973) (citing Long v. Leonard, 113 Vt. 258, 261, 32 A.2d 679, 681 (1943)). When reviewing a discretionary ruling, this Court ......
-
Derosia v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
...for appeal. Again, it is the trial court that must decide initially what evidence is relevant and admissible. See Bradley v. Buck, 131 Vt. 368, 371, 306 A.2d 98, 101 (1973). We do not agree with plaintiff that the evidence was properly barred under this Court's general admonition against br......
- Pierce v. Riggs