Lowe v. Morrison
| Decision Date | 16 April 1982 |
| Citation | 412 So.2d 1212 |
| Parties | L. B. LOWE v. Vernie MORRISON and Carolyn Morrison. 81-85. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Maury Friedlander of Marr & Friedlander, Mobile, for appellant.
Emmett R. Cox and Robert H. Allen, Mobile, for appellees.
Vernie and Carolyn Morrison, husband and wife, (Morrisons) sued L. B. Lowe, d/b/a/ Lowe Construction Company, (Lowe) seeking damages for breach of a written contract for construction of a house and for breaches of an implied warranty of workmanlike performance in the execution of the contract. Lowe counterclaimed for the balance due on the contract. The jury awarded $15,000.00 to Lowe for the balance due and $20,000.00 damages to the Morrisons, giving a net of $5,000.00 to the Morrisons. The trial court entered a judgment for $5,000.00 in favor of the Morrisons and denied Lowe's motion for new trial, after which Lowe perfected this appeal. 1 Lowe's primary contention on appeal is that the jury's verdict is fatally inconsistent and reflects a misunderstanding of the law because it gives awards for both substantial performance and breach of implied warranty of workmanlike performance. We find that the jury's awards are consistent and, therefore, affirm the trial court.
The Morrisons contracted with Lowe to build their house for $45,320.00, payable in three installments. The Morrisons paid the first two payments, totalling $30,000.00, but withheld the third because of complaints about the workmanship.
The testimony at trial, substantiated by photographs admitted into evidence, was that floors in the house were not level, walls were not plumb, the roof was poorly constructed, and many other aspects were defective or unsightly. The jury took a view of the house during the trial; "knowledge it may have acquired there, though unreported, is proper evidence." Western Railway of Alabama v. Still, 352 So.2d 1092, 1097 (Ala.1977). We are of the opinion that the jury verdict in the amount of $20,000.00 was based on substantial evidence.
There is ample authority for allowing a contractor to recover the balance due on his contract, while at the same time allowing the owner to recover substantial damages for unworkmanlike or incomplete performance. Fox v. Webb, 268 Ala. 111, 105 So.2d 75 (1958); Annot., 76 A.L.R.2d 805 (1961). Lowe's argument that substantial performance and breach of implied warranty of workmanlike performance are mutually exclusive is very similar to an argument disposed of by the Texas Court of Civil Appeals in Warren v. Denison, 563 S.W.2d 299 (Tex.Civ.App.1978). There, the Court held that "a finding that the builder did not complete the contract in a good workmanlike manner does not necessarily mean that he has not substantially performed the contract." Id., at 303.
Lowe argues that the amount of damages precludes a finding of substantial compliance, because the damages are 44% of the total contract price. This argument ignores the holding in Fox v. Webb, supra, where this court allowed a judgment to stand awarding a balance due to the contractor and damages to the owner amounting to 43% of the contract price.
The jury's award of $20,000.00 to the Morrisons was supported by sound legal authority. The proper measure of damages, where correction of defects would amount to economic waste, is the diminution in value of the house as constructed from the value it would have had if it had been constructed in a workmanlike manner. 76 A.L.R.2d 805 (1961).
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment below is due to be affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
I concur in the result of this case because the appellant did not properly preserve any error for review by this Court. The trial judge charged the jury that it could find both for the plaintiffs on their claim and for the defendant on his claim. The trial court had previously advised counsel for all parties of his intention to so charge the jury. At the time the trial court charged the jury, neither the plaintiffs nor ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Norman Properties v. Bozeman
...verdict. There are two methods of determining damages in a case involving the breach of the warranty of habitability. Lowe v. Morrison, 412 So.2d 1212, 1213 (Ala.1982). The reasonable cost of the repairs is the first measure of damages available, if the correction of the defects would not c......
-
Collins v. Windsor
...proper measure of damages in this case because the cost of repair exceeds the loss in value of the premises. Collins cites Lowe v. Morrison, 412 So.2d 1212 (Ala.1982), in support of that contention. The Lowe Court stated that "[t]he proper measure of damages, where correction of defects wou......
-
Rose v. Davis
...as a 'minimum design' usable pond." In Fox v. Webb, 268 Ala. 111, 105 So.2d 75 (1958), which is cited with approval in Lowe v. Morrison, 412 So.2d 1212 (Ala.1982), this Court, citing one of its prior cases, "This court in Walstrom v. Oliver-Watts Construction Co., 161 Ala. 608, 619, 50 So. ......
-
Poarch v. Alfa Mut. Ins. Co.
...Alfa liable for bad faith. Thus, Alfa argues that the trial court's instruction became the "law of the case," see, e.g., Lowe v. Morrison, 412 So.2d 1212 (Ala. 1982), and that the jury's verdict is not inconsistent. We reject this argument, in light of the trial court's instruction to the j......