Leftwich v. Brewster
Decision Date | 03 April 2020 |
Docket Number | 1180796 |
Citation | 306 So.3d 26 |
Parties | Jimmy LEFTWICH, Jr. v. Steven V. BREWSTER |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
John T. Robertson IV and Ralph K. Strawn, Jr., of Strawn & Robertson, L.L.C., Gadsden, for appellant.
William A. Mudd of Mudd, Bolvig, Luke & Wells, L.L.C., Birmingham, for appellee.
Jimmy Leftwich, Jr., appeals from the Etowah Circuit Court's denial of a motion for a new trial in his negligence action against Steven V. Brewster.Leftwich alleged that Brewster breached a duty to competently inspect a house that Leftwich purchased.The jury returned a verdict in favor of Brewster.On appeal, Leftwich contends that the trial court erred in failing to disqualify two jurors for cause and that the trial court erroneously excluded vital evidence that provided estimated costs to repair the home.We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
In 2014, Leftwich and his wife began looking for a new house.They became interested in a property located on Washington Circle in Gadsden, Alabama ("the home").The home was built in 1945, and Leftwich testified that, because of its age, he was concerned about the structural integrity of the home.Consequently, Leftwich hired Brewster, a licensed home inspector, to inspect the home before Leftwich made an offer on it.
On June 19, 2014, Brewster spent approximately three hours inspecting the home.He then drafted a written home-inspection report ("HIR") the same day that included several pictures of the property.Leftwich paid Brewster that same day.Brewster sent Leftwich the HIR the next day.The HIR stated that it was not intended to reflect the value of the premises or to make any representation as to the advisability of purchasing the home and that it expressed Brewster's personal opinions as the inspector based upon visual impressions of the conditions that existed at the time of the inspection.The HIR did not identify any major defects with the home, though it did note that there was one improperly spliced rafter in the attic.Leftwich testified that he read the HIR and that he felt he was getting one of the best inspections a person could obtain.
Thereafter, Leftwich received in the mail a home-inspection agreement ("HIA") from Brewster that was dated June 30, 2014.Leftwich testified that he did not sign and return the HIA because he had already paid Brewster and he had received the HIR.Brewster testified that he received the HIA in the mail and that it contained Leftwich's signature.Brewster's copy of the HIA was received into evidence, but Leftwich denied that the signature on the document was his.
Both parties agree that the HIA stated that the inspection was "performed in a manner consistent with ASHI [American Society of Home Inspectors] Standards of Practice."Brewster also testified that he followed standards provided by the Alabama Building Commission for home inspections.For his part, Leftwich argued that the 2003 International Residential Code ("IRC") applied to Brewster's home inspection because the HIR mentioned a portion of that building code.However, Brewster noted that the Alabama Building Commission standards did not require home inspectors to inspect for building-code compliance.He also observed that Leftwich's own home-inspection expert, Larry Brooks, testified that the IRC generally did not apply to home inspections.
Leftwich purchased the home for $77,000 on July 25, 2014.He testified that at the time he felt the home was actually worth more than he paid for it.According to Leftwich, within 90 days of moving into the home, the ceiling started to fall, the floors started to bow and sag, and the rafters in the kitchen started pushing down on the cabinets.Leftwich testified at trial that he eventually moved out of the home because he felt it was unsafe and that, in his opinion, because of the defects in the home's roof and its foundation, the home was worth only $5,000, which he stated was the value of the lot on which the home was situated.
On June 14, 2016, Leftwich filed an action in the Etowah Circuit Court against Brewster.Leftwich asserted claims of negligence and wantonness, and he sought compensatory and punitive damages, as well as damages for mental anguish and emotional distress.Leftwich alleged that Brewster had negligently and/or wantonly inspected the home, that Leftwich had purchased the home based on the assurance he gained from the HIR, which found no major defects in the home, that Leftwich discovered major defects with the home after he moved in, and that, if he had known of those defects beforehand, he would not have purchased the home.
The case proceeded to trial.During voir dire of the jury pool on April 1, 2019, two jurors -- Brad and Melissa Battles -- gave responses to questioning from Leftwich's counsel that revealed that they were married to each other.After that revelation, Leftwich's counsel did not direct any specific questions to either juror pertaining to potential bias.Instead, Leftwich's counsel later asked a generic question about bias to all the prospective jurors:
"Does anyone have anything that you feel like would in fairness interfere with your ability to evaluate the evidence in this case and award a verdict for one side or the other based on the as law given to you by the Judge and the evidence that comes to you through the trial of this case?"
None of the prospective jurors responded to this question.At the close of his voir dire questioning, Brewster's counsel also asked to the prospective jurors a generic question pertaining to potential bias:
None of the jurors responded to that question.
At the conclusion of voir dire, the trial court asked the parties if they had any motions to strike jurors for cause.Leftwich's counsel asked that the Battleses be stricken from the jury because they were related by marriage.The following exchange then occurred:
Thus, the trial court denied Leftwich's motion to strike for...
To continue reading
Request your trialUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Terrell v. Joshua
...589 So. 2d 165, 167 (Ala. 1991).’ "Middleton v. Lightfoot, 885 So. 2d 111, 113-14 (Ala. 2003) (emphasis omitted)." Leftwich v. Brewster, 306 So. 3d 26, 33 (Ala. 2020). III. Analysis [2] Terrell’s primary contention in this appeal is that Judge Smitherman exceeded her discretion when she exc......
-
In re Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Prods. Liab. Litig.
...Id. at 801-02. The Poffenbarger decision has been uniformly followed by the Alabama state and federal courts. As recently as 2020, in Leftwich v. Brewster, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant's negligence had caused his house to collapse and become uninhabitable. 306 So.3d 26, 28, 36-3......
-
Terrell v. Joshua
...589 So.2d 165, 167 (Ala. 1991).' "Middleton v. Lightfoot, 885 So.2d 111, 113-14 (Ala. 2003) (emphasis omitted)." Leftwich v. Brewster, 306 So.3d 26, 33 (Ala. 2020). III. Analysis Terrell's primary contention in this appeal is that Judge Smitherman exceeded her discretion when she excluded f......