Byrnes v. Metz
| Decision Date | 01 February 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 247,247 |
| Citation | 193 N.W.2d 675,53 Wis.2d 627 |
| Parties | Mary W. BYRNES et al., Appellants, v. Thomas METZ et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
This appeal concerns the damages recoverable under an injunction bond. On April 9, 1968, the circuit court for Milwaukee county, Hon. William I. O'Neill presiding, issued a temporary injunction at the request of plaintiffs-appellants, Mary W. Byrnes, Joseph P. Gilsinger and Henry Laabs, Jr. This injunction restrained defendants- respondents, Thomas Metz, Charles Metz and Mrs. Charles Metz, from excavating, erecting or constructing on a certain lot located in the city of Wauwatosa. Under the provisions of the injunction, appellants were to post a bond in the amount of $7,500. It was appellants' contention that the buildings proposed by respondents for this lot did not comply with the zoning code of the city of Wauwatosa.
The matter was tried before Judge O'Neill on September 17, 1968. On October 23, 1968, the court rendered judgment in favor of respondents, dismissed the complaint, and ordered the temporary injunction vacated. On December 10, 1968, such judgment was entered. After the appeal period had expired, construction was started.
On April 17, 1969, respondents petitioned the circuit court, Hon. Carl H. Daley, reserve circuit judge, presiding, for a reference to determine the damages under the injunction bond. The court appointed Court Commissioner Patrick T. Sheedy to act as referee. Commissioner Sheedy determined that respondents were entitled to the following damages:
Loss of income from property $ 142.82
Legal expenses 500.00
Increased construction costs 5,200.00
On May 22, 1970, the circuit court entered an order awarding respondents those damages found by the referee.
Following the entry of the order respondents taxed costs amounting to $2,412.86. The clerk of circuit court refused to tax the costs and referred the matter back to the court. The court ordered that the amount taxed for attorneys' fees--$2,200--be reduced by $900. On October 5, 1970, the court entered judgment awarding respondents the damages assessed by the referee and, as reduced, $1,512.86 in costs and disbursements. Plaintiffs appeal from that part of the judgment awarding the Metzes $5,200 for increased construction costs and $1,512.86 for costs and disbursements in the action.
Niebler & Niebler, John H. Niebler, Menomonee Falls, for appellants.
Erbstoeszer, Cleary & Zabel, Milwaukee, for respondents.
Three questions are raised on this appeal:
1. Are the increased costs of construction recoverable under the injunction bond?
2. Did respondents violate their duty to mitigate their damages?
3. Did the circuit court abuse its discretion in setting costs and attorneys' fees?
The basic rule for computing damages under an injunction bond was first set out by this court in 1846 in Gear v. Shaw: 1
This rule was reaffirmed in 1932 in Muscoda Bridge Co. v. Worden-Allen Co. 2 The crucial issue on this appeal is whether the increased costs of construction are recoverable under this rule.
Under the terms of the contract between respondents and their contractor, the contract was cancelled when this injunction was issued, unless respondents agreed to pay the increased costs of construction between the time of the contract, November 26, 1967, and the time actual construction was commenced. There is no doubt but that between the time of the original contract and the time the injunction was finally lifted construction costs did increase.
The basic question of whether such increased construction costs are recoverable is one of first impression in Wisconsin. Appellants contend that since the damages claimed are for future increases in costs not in existence at the time the injunction was issued, they are not recoverable. Other courts which have considered the question have allowed recovery for increased construction costs. 3 Such recovery is consistent with the general principle that any loss of ascertainable value resulting from the improvident issuance of a temporary injunction is recoverable. 4 The cost to respondents of the buildings increased only because of the temporary injunction, not because of subsequent events. Under the rule of Gear v. Shaw, 5 as construed in subsequent cases, the increased construction costs are recoverable.
Appellants contend that even if the increased costs of construction are recoverable, respondents failed to exercise their duty to mitigate damages. As the hearing before the referee appellants produced evidence that buildings similar to those constructed by respondents could have been built with only a three percent, or $1,500, increase in costs during the period of the injunction. However, respondents countered with testimony that the buildings they wanted were of superior quality to those referred to by appellants' witnesses.
The burden of proof is upon the delinquent party to show that the opposing party could have mitigated his damages. 6 Furthermore, the duty to mitigate damages is imposed only to the extent that it is reasonable to do so. 7 In the present case appellants' witnesses were unable to testify whether they could build the same buildings as those constructed by respondents' contractors. Neither witness called by appellants had been inside the buildings or had knowledge of the materials used in the construction of the buildings. Their testimony was that they could build 'similar' buildings for less.
In Ashley v. American Automobile Ins. Co. 8 this court indicated that it would not be unreasonable for an accident victim to seek medical care in a distant city even though the same treatment was available closer to her home for one-half the cost. The same rationale applies here. Respondents were obviously satisfied with the contractor they had originally selected, and they believed that his work was superior to that offered by other contractors. Appellants have failed to prove that respondents could have mitigated their loss and still have buildings of the quality they desired or that their reliance on the contractor was unreasonable.
Appellants further argue that respondents did not prove...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sprecher v. Weston's Bar, Inc.
...to establish that the former failed to do all that was reasonable to minimize his damages subsequent to the breach. Byrnes v. Metz, 53 Wis.2d 627, 631, 193 N.W.2d 675 (1972). See also: State ex rel. Schilling & Klingler v. Baird, 65 Wis.2d 394, 398, 222 N.W.2d 666 (1974); Schiller v. Keuffe......
-
Lobermeier v. General Telephone Co. of Wisconsin
...875. Failure to mitigate damages is an affirmative defense which must be raised by the defendant in its answer. Byrnes v. Metz, 53 Wis.2d 627, 632, 193 N.W.2d 675 (1972); Peeples v. Sargent, 77 Wis.2d 612, 631, 253 N.W.2d 459 (1977). When the defense is properly raised, the burden of provin......
-
C. A. May Marine Supply Co. v. Brunswick Corp.
...451, 255 N.W.2d 293 (1977); Howard v. State Farm Mutual Auto Liability, 70 Wis.2d 985, 236 N.W.2d 643 (Wis.1975); Byrnes v. Mets, 53 Wis.2d 627, 193 N.W.2d 675 (1972); Dehnhart v. Waukesha Brewing Co., 21 Wis.2d 583, 124 N.W.2d 664 (1963).4 Cases discussing damage issues frequently arise in......
- Wadsworth v. Moe, 244