Coursey Bldg. Associates v. Baker

• Decision Date: 23 February 1983
• Docket Number: No. 65064,65064
• Citation: 301 S.E.2d 688,165 Ga.App. 521
• Parties: COURSEY BUILDING ASSOCIATES et al. v. BAKER.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 688

301 S.E.2d 688

165 Ga.App. 521

COURSEY BUILDING ASSOCIATES et al. v. BAKER.

No. 65064.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Feb. 23, 1983.

Theodore H. Lackland, Jack K. Holland, Atlanta, for appellants.

Christopher J. Valianos, Atlanta, for appellee.

SOGNIER, Judge.

This suit was brought by appellee Baker seeking damages for the negligent repair and reconstruction of a basement wall and breach of contract by appellants Coursey Building Associates (Associates) and its president J. Walter Coursey (Coursey). The appeal is from a special jury verdict and judgment against both appellants in the amount of $10,000, and the denial of their motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or alternatively for new trial.

The contract entered into by the parties called for Coursey and Associates to do extensive repairs, waterproofing and reconstruction of a basement wall to alleviate a water and drainage problem which was causing the wall to lean and crack. Appellants agreed to effectuate these repairs at cost plus 20% for a total price of approximately $4,000. Baker understood that the solution proposed would not be effective if the problem was more serious than appellants thought. After the repairs were performed the wall cracked again, Coursey wrote Baker a letter stating that the concrete footing at the foundation which was flaking badly may have caused the damage, and proposed that appellants build a retaining wall at a cost of $5,000. Baker agreed, but before the work was finished the wall cracked again and began to collapse. Coursey consulted a structural engineer and prepared a third proposal which he presented to Baker. Baker also consulted a structural engineer, Al Lagerstrom, who reviewed the situation and recommended still another plan. Coursey agreed to have Associates follow the Lagerstrom plan if Baker would sign a release and pay them $3,000 plus half the materials. At this time the wall was collapsing, a large cavity had formed under the driveway next to the wall, the exterior of the house had been damaged and the landscaping ruined, and Baker had paid appellants $9,500. Baker then hired another contractor and paid $12,000 to have the wall repaired in accord with the Lagerstrom plan.

1. Appellants contend that the trial court erred in permitting Lagerstrom, who was qualified to give expert testimony as a "structural engineer," to state his opinion on the standard of care expected of a contractor. Lagerstrom testified that he had a bachelor's degree in civil engineering, had been engaged as a "structural engineer" for 25 years in the design structure for buildings, and for the last 15 years as a consulting engineer. He was declared competent to testify as an expert by the court and was asked to give his opinion as to the standard of care "that should have been used in the ... planning and construction of the wall, the things that Mr. Walter Coursey did." Lagerstrom testified that in his opinion the wall should have been attached to the floor so the house would then stay on top, but that first it should be determined if the wall was capable of spanning ten feet; that the steel reinforcements used by appellants were not "practical"; and that the drainage plans should have included piping the ground water around the wall. Lagerstrom was clearly knowledgeable in this field of construction.

"To qualify as an expert [see OCGA § 24-9-67; former Code § 38-1710], generally all that is required is that a person must have been educated in a particular skill or profession; his special knowledge may be derived from experience as well as study. [Cits.] Formal education in the subject at hand is not a prerequisite for expert status. Whether one qualifies as an expert lies within the trial court's discretion. [Cits.] Appellant has shown no abuse of his discretion by the trial judge in permitting this witness to testify." Bowden v. State, 239 Ga. 821, 826(3), 238 S.E.2d 905 (1977). Accord, Hogan v. Olivera, 141 Ga.App. 399(1-c), 233 S.E.2d 428 (1977). See generally Agnor's Ga.Evid. § 9-9.

2. Appellants complain that the trial court erroneously permitted Lagerstrom to express his opinion as to the ultimate fact in issue, which was whether or not appellants' work met the standard of care applicable to a contractor. We do not agree. It is essential to present competent evidence as to the acceptability of specific professional conduct. Berman v. Rubin, 138 Ga.App. 849, 853, 227 S.E.2d 802 (1976). "The propriety of expert opinion as to whether a particular condition is safe or unsafe certainly is within the scope and purview of an expert's opinion. [Cit.] Moreover, testimony as to causation is a proper matter for expert testimony. [Cits.] We find no error in allowing the expert to give the opinions as to which objection was made nor do those answers invade the province of the jury." Pembrook Management v. Cossaboon, 157 Ga.App. 675, 679(5), 278 S.E.2d 100 (1981).

3. Neither do we agree that the trial court erred in allowing evidence of the structural repairs necessary to rebuild the wall subsequent to Coursey and Associates' efforts. This was not unrelated activity nor irrelevant to the issues before the court, as appellants argue, but demonstrated to the jury the effectiveness of Lagerstrom's plans as well as providing evidence of the reasonable cost of these corrective actions for the purpose of establishing damages. See, e.g., Kuhlke Const. Co. v. Mobley, Inc., 159 Ga.App. 777(2), 285 S.E.2d 236 (1981); Four Oaks Properties v. Carusi, 156 Ga.App. 422(3), 274 S.E.2d 783 (1980); Mabry v. Henley, 123 Ga.App. 561(2), 181 S.E.2d 884 (1971).

4. Appellants urge that a directed verdict in their favor should have been granted on the negligence count as there was no evidence that Coursey was negligent in the performance of...