Carter v. Wolf Creek Highway Water Dist., 37-728

• Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
• Citation: 54 Or.App. 569,635 P.2d 1036
• Docket Number: No. 37-728,37-728
• Parties: Elden W. CARTER, Appellant, v. WOLF CREEK HIGHWAY WATER DISTRICT, a corporation, Respondent. ; CA 18377.
• Decision Date: 09 November 1981

Page 1036

635 P.2d 1036 54 Or.App. 569 Elden W. CARTER, Appellant,
v.
WOLF CREEK HIGHWAY WATER DISTRICT, a corporation, Respondent. No. 37-728; CA 18377. Court of Appeals of Oregon. Argued and Submitted June 26, 1981.
Decided Nov. 9, 1981.

[54 Or.App. 570]

Page 1037

Glen Shearer, Portland, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs was Schouboe, Marvin & Furniss, P.C., Portland.

Jeffrey M. Batchelor, Hillsboro, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Schwenn, Bradley, Batchelor & Brisbee, Portland, and Spears, Lubersky, Campbell & Bledsoe, Portland.

Before RICHARDSON, P. J., and THORNTON and VAN HOOMISSEN, JJ.

[54 Or.App. 571] THORNTON, Judge.

Plaintiff appeals from a jury verdict entered in favor of defendant Wolf Creek Highway Water District (District), on District's counterclaim. Plaintiff assigns as error the trial court's denial of plaintiff's motion for directed verdict upon the District's counterclaim.

The essential facts are as follows. Plaintiff provided engineering services on projects for defendant over a period of years from 1960 to 1976. One such project involved engineering services relating to the design and construction of the Schell Reservoir. The District directed plaintiff to prepare plans and specifications for the Schell project.

The Schell Reservoir water storage tank was completed in 1975; however, water could not be drained from the tank. There is a dispute in the testimony as to exactly what water distribution system plaintiff promised defendant, but the jury could reasonably infer that the Schell Reservoir, as built per plaintiff's design, was intended by the parties to operate and carry water to and from the tank.

When the parties discovered that the tank would not drain, plaintiff suggested an alternative distribution line which would be built to carry water from the tank over what was known as the Coe-Muessig property. Since the District did not have an easement across the Coe-Muessig property, plaintiff set out to obtain one and prepared plans for construction of the additional distribution line. The District later lost confidence in plaintiff and terminated his services

Page 1038

in 1976, thus abandoning the alternative Coe-Muessig line. Instead, the District hired another engineer who designed a system that allowed water to enter the Schell Reservoir tank through the line plaintiff had designed and to be removed from the tank through another line laid parallel to the first. The new line was completed in 1979 and operated properly.

Plaintiff brought the present action for $33,355.43 in fees for several projects occurring in the years 1973 through 1976. Included in plaintiff's complaint was a claim for $750 expended in the acquisition of the Coe-Muessig [54 Or.App. 572] easement and for planning the proposed alternate distribution line. The District counterclaimed for $292,000 as the additional costs it allegedly incurred in construction of a new line, contending that plaintiff was negligent in the design and preparation for construction of the Schell Reservoir when plaintiff knew, or should have known, that the reservoir would not function.

The jury awarded plaintiff $1,020.84 for fees owed plaintiff on his claim and awarded defendant $10,000 on his counterclaim.

Plaintiff argues first that a directed verdict upon defendant's counterclaim should have been granted because defendant failed to prove it had incurred any damages as a result of plaintiff's actions. He maintains that the cost of the distribution line would have...