Freeman v. Gentry Builders, Ltd.
| Decision Date | 20 May 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. C--467,C--467 |
| Citation | 185 Colo. 123,522 P.2d 739 |
| Parties | Doris H. FREEMAN and Mildred E. Freeman, Petitioners, v. GENTRY BUILDERS, LTD., Respondent. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Agee & Fann, Peter A. Goldstein, Colorado Springs, for petitioners.
Blakemore McCarty, Ernest O. Tullis, Colorado Springs, for respondent.
We granted the petition for writ of certiorari to review a limited issue in Gentry Builders, Ltd. v. Freeman, Colo.App., 517 P.2d 469 (1973). We now reverse and remand for a new trial.
The issue before us relates to the trial court's refusal to admit expert testimony on damages which arose out of an alleged breach of an implied warranty. Two expert witnesses testified that the builder of the home which the Freemans purchased failed to place voids in the nonbearing partitions of the house. As a result, cracks in the house foundation and walls developed when the expansive soil upon which the house stood became wet and exerted force against the rigid floor slab.
A contractor, who had extensive experience in constructing foundations, erecting drywalls, and building private residences, was called as an expert witness to express an opinion as to the necessary cost of repairs to correct the defects in the Freeman home. Although the contractor had considerable experience in the building trade, he had never personally caused cuts or voids to be made in 2 4's to deal with the expansion problems that arise out of expansive soil conditions.
The offer of proof established that the contractor would have testified that the cost of remedying the defects was $8,000 to $10,000. The trial court sustained objections to the contractor's opinion testimony on the ground that the contractor had never personally placed voids or removed and replaced sheet rock in connection with the placing of voids. As a result of the trial court's refusal to allow the expert to give testimony relating to the cost of repairs, no evidence was admitted to establish the damages which the Freemans sustained. The trial court directed a verdict against the Freemans on the implied warranty claim, since the amount of damages was not proven.
Generally, the trial court's ruling on the admissibility of expert testimony is conclusive. However, if it is shown that the trial court's ruling is clearly erroneous and results in the exclusion of competent and relevant evidence from the trial, reversal is required. Baldwin v. Schipper, 155 Colo. 197, 393 P.2d (1964); Atencio v. Torres, 153 Colo. 507, 385 P.2d 659 (1963); Bridges v. Lintz, 140 Colo. 582, 346 P.2d 571 (1959). See Rhodig v. Cummings, 160 Colo. 499, 418 P.2d 521 (1966).
In Rhodig v. Commings, Supra, we held that it was error to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Mulligan
...of expert testimony lies with the trial court's discretion and will be upheld unless clearly or palpably erroneous. Freeman v. Gentry Builders, 185 Colo. 123, 522 P.2d 739; Bridges v. Lintz, 140 Colo. 582, 346 P.2d 571; Pueblo v. Ratliff, 137 Colo. 468, 327 P.2d 270. Expert testimony is adm......
-
Great Western Sugar Co. v. Northern Natural Gas Co., s. 80CA0081
...Unless clearly erroneous, a trial court's ruling on the admissibility of expert testimony is conclusive. Freeman v. Gentry Builders, Ltd., 185 Colo. 123, 522 P.2d 739 (1974). The trial court has broad discretion to determine the sanctions to be imposed on a party for failure to disclose the......
- People ex rel. Farina v. District Court of 21st Judicial Dist.
-
Kerby v. Flamingo Club, Inc.
...that absent clear error, the trial court's ruling on the admissibility of expert testimony if conclusive. See, e.g., Freeman v. Gentry Builders, Ltd., Colo., 522 P.2d 739. Bridges v. Lintz, 140 Colo. 582, 346 P.2d 571, supports the ruling of the trial court in this In Bridges the officer wh......