Lambert & Intreri, Inc. v. Holiday Motor Hotel, Inc.

• Decision Date: 03 January 1968
• Citation: 236 A.2d 804,428 Pa. 299
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
• Parties: LAMBERT & INTRERI, INC. v. The HOLIDAY MOTOR HOTEL, INC. and Gene Zimmerman's Enterprises, Inc., Appellants.

Page 804

236 A.2d 804

428 Pa. 299

LAMBERT & INTRERI, INC. v.The HOLIDAY MOTOR HOTEL, INC. and Gene Zimmerman's Enterprises, Inc., Appellants.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Jan. 3, 1968.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

The plaintiff, Lambert and Intreri, Inc., entered suit in assumpsit against the defendantsHoliday Motor Hotel, Inc. and Gene Zimmerman's Enterprises, Inc., for $203,563.29 for work performed by it in the construction of Phase I of the Holiday Inn Town in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, under a written cost-plus contract.By way of Answer containing New Matter, the defendants contended that the plaintiff had improperly charged certain labor and materials to the contract; had breached the contract and caused the defendants to incur damage as the result of an unworkmanlike performance.The defendants counterclaimed for the difference between such damages and the balance found to be due plaintiff under the contract.

At the ensuing trial, which lasted three weeks, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $200,116.36, which included interest at 6%.

The defendants filed a motion for new trial, alleging errors (32 in all) in the trial, in the court's charge and in the jury's verdict.The court below found no merit in these contentions and refuse the Motion, giving its reasons therefor in a lengthy opinion.Our study of the record and the applicable law leads us to agree with the lower court's refusal of the defendants' motion for new trial.The court below has in its Opinion thoroughly discussed the principal issues involved and all the pertinent facts and law applicable thereto; it has concluded the same properly.We see no reason for further elaboration.

Judgment affirmed.

ROBERTS, J., concurs.

BELL, C.J., and JONES, J., did not participate in the deliberation or decision of this case.

CONCURRING OPINION

ROBERTS, Justice.

Appellants' brief lists five trial errors, three of which concern evidentiary rulings.I agree with the majority that these three alleged errors are adequately resolved in the opinion of the trial court and do not require further discussion.The other two asserted errors involve the court's charge covering plaintiff's burden of proof and the jury's failure to separate principal and interest in its lump sum verdict.

It cannot be gainsaid that in an assumpsit action the elements comprising plaintiff's burden of proof is a concept which can be properly classified as elementary.I...