Frederick v. Strickland
Decision Date | 06 August 1980 |
Citation | 386 So.2d 1150 |
Parties | Charles W. FREDERICK and Jeanette Frederick v. James STRICKLAND. Civ. 2128. |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
W. T. Johnson, Muscle Shoals, for appellants.
James K. Davis of Fite, Davis & Fite, Hamilton, for appellee.
Plaintiffs, Charles W. and Jeanette Frederick, appeal from the denial of their motion for new trial.
Plaintiffs contracted with the defendant, James Strickland, for the construction of a house. The contract price was to be $24,600. After moving into the house, the plaintiffs brought this action to recover damages for alleged defects in the construction of the house.
At the trial plaintiff Jeanette Frederick testified that the difference in the value of the house as it was supposed to have been built according to the contract and the value as it was actually built was $17,000. Douglas Glaze, a carpenter, also testified as to the cost of repairing certain defects in the house. The total cost of these items came to $7,810.00. The defendant offered no contradictory evidence as to the estimate of damages. The jury returned a verdict of $1,200. The plaintiffs' motion for a new trial was denied and this appeal followed.
Plaintiffs contend that because the defendant offered no evidence to contradict the testimony as to damages the jury was bound by the opinion evidence of value offered by plaintiffs.
The jury does not have an absolute right to disregard the testimony of competent witnesses and substitute its own conclusion for undisputed evidence. Hyde v. Starnes, 247 Ala. 26, 22 So.2d 421 (1945). And where a jury verdict cannot be justified on any reasonable hypothesis presented by the evidence, it should be set aside. Farmers & Ginners Cotton Oil Co. v. Reliance Insurance Co., Ala., 341 So.2d 147 (1976).
Normally, the above stated rules would apply in the case at bar since the only direct testimony of damages was for either $17,000 or $7,810, and not for $1,200 as found by the jury. However, in the instant case the jury was allowed to inspect the house. Knowledge acquired by the jury during a view is proper evidence. Western Railway of Alabama v. Still, Ala., 352 So.2d 1092 (1977).
Furthermore, when the jury is permitted to view the premises, it is not bound by the estimate of damages given by witnesses. State v. Carter, 267 Ala. 347, 101 So.2d 550 (1958); Whitman v. Housing Authority of the City of Elba, 272 Ala. 245, 130 So.2d 362 (1961). Therefore we conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury verdict of $1,200 and the denial of the motion for new trial based on inadequate damages is without error.
The remaining issue is whether the trial court erred in overruling the motion for new trial on the ground that a member of the trial jury failed to answer truthfully a question propounded during voir dire.
Paragraph four of the motion for new trial is as follows:
4. One of the members of the jury, Edward Box, failed to truthfully answer a question propounded to the jury venire by Plaintiffs' attorney in that he failed to state that he was a construction contractor or worked for a contractor when he was in fact so employed, and as a result, sat as a biased and prejudiced juror, with a resulting influence on the amount of the jury's verdict.
The assertions of paragraph four of the new trial motion are not supported by affidavits, testimony or exhibits. Plaintiffs contend, however, that they had no opportunity to offer testimony in support of the motion because the trial court overruled their...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kitchens v. Maye
...it. Walls v. Bank of Prattville, 554 So.2d 381 (Ala.1989); Greene v. Thompson, 554 So.2d 376 (Ala.1989); see also Frederick v. Strickland, 386 So.2d 1150 (Ala.Civ.App.1980). The record shows that Kitchens made two requests for a hearing to conduct oral argument, one with his motion for new ......
-
Chamberlin v. Chamberlin
...Res., 150 So.3d 782, 783 (Ala.Civ.App.2014) ; see also Greene v. Thompson, 554 So.2d 376, 381 (Ala.1989) ; and Frederick v. Strickland, 386 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Ala.Civ.App.1980). As to the substance of the postjudgment motion, although it is titled a "motion for a new trial," in substance it ......
-
Antoine v. Oxmoor Preservation/One, LLC
...the right to such a hearing under Rule 59(g), Ala. R. Civ. P. Greene v. Thompson, 554 So.2d 376, 381 (Ala.1989); Frederick v. Strickland, 386 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Ala.Civ.App.1980). Thus, the trial court committed no error in failing to hold a hearing on Antoine's postjudgment motion. We now t......
-
Antoine v. Oxmoor Pres./One, LLC
...right to such a hearing under Rule 59(g), Ala. R. Civ. P. Greene v. Thompson, 554 So. 2d 376, 381 (Ala. 1989); Frederick v. Strickland, 386 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Ala. Civ. App. 1980). Thus, the trial court committed no error in failing to hold a hearing on Antoine's postjudgment motion. We now......