Massman Const. Co. v. Missouri Highway and Transp. Com'n, WD
| Decision Date | 01 April 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. WD,WD |
| Citation | 948 S.W.2d 631 |
| Parties | MASSMAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Respondent, v. MISSOURI HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, Appellant. 52854. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
John Koenig, Jr., Sikeston, for appellant.
Stephen Miller, Kansas City, for respondent.
After two jury trials, two appeals and a couple of remands, the courts still have not resolved the Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission's and Massman Construction Company's dispute over the amount of damages due to Massman for a breach of warranty ex contractu. The last jury to consider the case awarded $250,000 to Massman, but the circuit court granted Massman's motion to increase the verdict and increased the award to $750,000. The commission contends that the circuit court erred in granting Massman's motion. We remand with instructions that the circuit court offer the commission the choice of accepting the $750,000 award or a new trial on all issues.
Massman sued the commission for damages arising out of its having to remove a rock revetment from the Missouri River. Pursuant to its contract with the commission, Massman was erecting a bridge over the river on U.S. 40 and 61 near St. Charles and Chesterfield. The revetment, not previously shown on the commission's project plans, interfered with placement of one of the bridge's piers, and the commission told Massman to remove it. In the first trial, the circuit court granted summary judgment to Massman on the issue of liability only and ordered the parties to try the issue of damages only to a jury. The jury awarded Massman $1,922,821.28. The commission appealed, and this court reversed. We ruled that because the commission had evidence that Massman knew that the revetment was at the site before construction--Massman had put it there pursuant to a contract with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers--the circuit court erroneously granted summary judgment. We concluded that the circuit court should have permitted the jury to hear the commission's evidence. Massman Construction Company v. Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission, 835 S.W.2d 465 (Mo.App.1992).
The circuit court held a second trial. That jury, after hearing the additional evidence, returned a verdict of only $250,000 for Massman. Massman filed a "Motion to Increase the Jury Award," asking the circuit court to increase the jury's award to $1,922,821.28, the amount of the jury verdict in the first trial. The circuit court did not increase the jury award but found that the jury's award was inadequate and ordered a new trial. The commission appealed, and the Supreme Court transferred the case to that court. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's order granting a new trial and remanded the case so the circuit court could enter a proper response to Massman's motion for additur. The Supreme Court said, "To overrule the motion for additur and at the same time grant a new trial when no new trial was sought was reversible error." Massman Construction Company v. Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission, 914 S.W.2d 801, 804 (Mo. banc 1996).
On remand, the circuit court entered an order increasing the jury verdict from $250,000 to $750,000, but it gave the commission the option of accepting the increased verdict or having a new trial on the issue of damages only. The circuit court's order said:
The amount of the jury's verdict of $250,000 in favor of Massman rendered on January 28, 1994 is against the weight of the evidence, is inadequate and less than fair and reasonable compensation for the damages sustained by Massman. In reaching the verdict, the jury has made an honest mistake in fixing the amount of damages. In light of these factors, a new trial is required unless the defendant, the Commission, consents to increasing the judgment.
After considering all the evidence presented at the trial the week of January 24, 1994, it is the opinion of this Court that fair and reasonable compensation for Massman's damages is $750,000. This amount of compensation was proven at trial and is within the amount of damages supported by substantial evidence at trial.
The error by the jury in fixing the amount of damages was not the result of bias and prejudice and does not pertain to any issues regarding liability.
In its first point on appeal, the commission contends that Massman's motion to increase the verdict did not allege sufficient grounds. It asserts that Massman's motion did not allege good cause for granting the motion or allege that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The assertion is wrong. Although not a model of clarity, Massman's motion alleged that the jury's verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The Supreme...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wiley v. Homfeld, WD 69560
...310, 333 (Mo. App.2000). This court has previously addressed the appropriate review in Massman Construction Co. v. Missouri Highway & Transportation Commission, 948 S.W.2d 631, 633 (Mo.App.1997), where we held "a circuit court's granting additur2 is equivalent to granting a new trial on the......
-
Wiley v. Homfeld, No. WD 69560 (Mo. App. 11/3/2009), WD 69560.
...310, 333 (Mo. App. 2000). This court has previously addressed the appropriate review in Massman Construction Co. v. Missouri Highway & Transportation Commission, 948 S.W.2d 631, 633 (Mo. App. 1997), where we held "[a] circuit court's granting additur2 is equivalent to granting a new trial o......
-
Massman Construction Co. v. MO Highway Commission
...of accepting the $750,000 award to Massman or retrying the case on all issues. Massman Construction Company v. Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission, 948 S.W.2d 631 (Mo. App. 1997) (Massman III). On remand, the commission chose a new trial on all issues. This trial resulted in a ju......