Holland Const. Co. v. Lampson
| Decision Date | 10 December 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 12676,12676 |
| Citation | 528 P.2d 1327,165 Mont. 356 |
| Parties | HOLLAND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Neil F. LAMPSON, Defendant and Respondent. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
Evalyn B. Carson (argued), Billings, for plaintiff and appellant.
Moulton, Bellingham, Longo & Mather, Ward Swanser (argued), Billings, for defendant and respondent.
This is an appeal from a judgment adverse to plaintiff entered in the district court, Yellowstone County. The matter was tried by the court sitting without a jury. Plaintiff Holland Construction Company, Inc. alleged an indebtedness to it by defendant Neil F. Lampson, Inc. for labor, parts and materials furnished on the repair of equipment owned by Lampson.
On appeal, plaintiff Holland brings three issues:
1. Is there substantial evidence to support the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the trial judge who found that the reasonable value of the services of Holland Construction Co. was $18,292.45?
2. Did the trial court err in refusing to allow any testimony offered by plaintiff?
3. Was the court correct in applying the rule that plaintiff was entitled to recover only the reasonable value of the services performed?
Holland alleged that Lampson was indebted to Holland for $33,557.82. Lampson in its answer admitted certain work was performed on its equipment; that there was no contract between the parties for the work performed; and therefore Holland was entitled to recover only for reasonable services rendered. The trial court found the amount owed Holland to be $18,292.45.
Prior to submission of its statement for the total cost of the repair work to the Lampson crane there was no discussion of the total cost, or hourly cost for the work done between the parties, unless it could be said that Holland's statement that the shop was 'competitive in the area', was a discussion of cost. The work took approximately 30 days of shop work. When the statement was submitted to Lampson, it was considered exorbitant and Lampson refused to pay. Holland alleges it is entitled to recover for all time spent by its staff of thirteen employees, plus office staff, spent on the job. Lampson alleges the work could have been performed in far less time and that Holland is only entitled to recover for the reasonable number of hours it would take to perform the job.
At trial Holland introduced time cards to show the number of hours worked by its personnel to establish what was a reasonable hourly figure. No other testimony was introduced to support the reasonableness of the statement submitted. A problem arose as to the time cards in that they were discredited because of the manner in which they were kept and the obvious errors which appeared on the face of the cards. One difficulty was that due to the inclement weather the time clock froze and had to be repaired. Another was that the workers were supposed to keep their job time allocated to the various jobs they worked on during the day, but when the cards were checked the times written in on the various cards appeared to be in only one person's handwriting. As a result, the trial court rejected the time card evidence as proof of reasonableness of the total job cost inasmuch as Holland offered no other explanation for the time required to perform the work on the crane.
In an effort to ascertain a proper figure for the amount owed Holland, the court viewed Holland's machine shop operation; checked the crane itself to determine the work performed; and, after so doing concluded the time charged was excessive, although it accepted Holland's figures on the proper hourly charge.
Lampson introduced as a witness one Draper, its foreman, who was present when most of the work was done. Draper testified that 80% of the work was done on the crane within ten days, after about 313 man hours. The bill submitted showed 1300 man hours. Lampson also introduced the testimony of an expert, one Peterson from an independent machine shop in Portland, Oregon, who testified as to, in his opinion, the number of hours reasonable to do the work required. Lampson introduced other testimony to support Peterson's testimony and compared the number of hours charged by Holland with hours charged by other machine shops for similar work. Appellant Holland's first issue questions the sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law. This Court has long held that it will uphold a trial court's findings unless the evidence decidedly and with decisive clarity predominates against them. Christensen v. Hunt, 147 Mont. 484, 414 P.2d 648. Further, we have held that in reviewing the record in the trial court it is not within our province to determine whether we agree with the conclusions reached if they are supported by the evidence. Ranch Co., 160 Mont. 293, 502 P.2d 41; Ranch Co, 160 Mont. 293, 502 P.2d 41; Hellickson v. Barrett Mobile Home Transport, Inc., 161 Mont. 445, 507 P.2d 523; Nissen v. Western Const. Equip. Co., 133 Mont. 143, 320 P.2d 997.
The question here is whether Holland has shown there was an insufficiency of evidence to support the judgment. We find appellant failed to overcome the presumption of the correctness of the trial court's findings (1) by failing to introduce evidence to support the reasonableness of the hours charged to the Lampson job, and (2) that Lampson's witnesses' testimony supports the court's findings.
As noted heretofore, the validity of the time cards was questioned and at best they only show the number of hours charged to the job and not the hours necessary to accomplish it. Holland totally failed to show by the time cards the number of hours necessary or reasonable to perform the work.
The only real evidence before the trial court to assist in determining the reasonable number of hours to do the necessary work was introduced by Lampson's Witness Peterson, who testified without objection. Peterson was qualified, through years of experience in bidding on similar jobs, to testify on the reasonable number of hours necessary to accomplish the work performed by Holland. His testimony took into consideration the type of work, Holland's equipment, and the new parts used. He inspected the...
To continue reading
Request your trial