McDonald v. Mianecki

Decision Date06 March 1979
Citation79 N.J. 275,398 A.2d 1283
Parties, 16 A.L.R.4th 1227 Henry P. McDONALD and Barbara McDonald, his wife, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Joseph S. MIANECKI, and Delores Mianecki, his wife, Defendants-Appellants.
CourtNew Jersey Supreme Court

Morris M. Schnitzer, Newark, for defendants-appellants (Schnitzer & Schnitzer, Newark, attorneys).

William R. Albrecht, Morristown, for plaintiffs-respondents (Schenck, Price, Smith & King, Morristown, attorneys).

The opinion of the court was delivered by

PASHMAN, J.

In this case, we are called upon to decide whether an implied warranty of workmanship and habitability arises upon the sale of a home by a builder-vendor, and, if so, whether potability of the water supply is included within the realm of warranted items. For the reasons given herein we conclude that both questions must be answered in the affirmative. A further issue is raised regarding the plaintiff's duty to mitigate damages.

I Factual Background

In 1972 Joseph Mianecki, one of the defendants herein, placed a newspaper advertisement in which he offered to build a house on a certain piece of property now identified as 7 Dolores Place, Mine Hill Township. Plaintiffs Mr. and Mrs. Henry McDonald, desirous of purchasing a new home, responded to this advertisement and in July 1972 met with Mianecki at the proposed site and discussed the type of house they wished to have constructed. At that meeting the McDonalds were informed that Mianecki had built two other houses in the area. Although Mianecki was also employed as a construction project engineer by a large commercial contractor, by the start of the present litigation he classified his occupation as that of "builder."

The parties reached agreement as to the dwelling to be erected which was formalized in a written contract dated July 17, 1972. The purchase price was $44,500. The contract provided, Inter alia, that the house would be serviced by water from a well to be constructed by Mianecki, and that the well system would be guaranteed for a one- year period. The McDonalds had never before had a house built for them nor had they lived in a home serviced by well water.

During the early stages of the construction process, the McDonalds frequently visited the property to do some painting and perform other odd jobs. At first they cleaned their hands and brushes at a nearby barn as their water supply had not yet been connected. Later, as the house neared completion, the water began to flow and the McDonalds washed up inside the home. They soon noticed that the sinks and toilet fixtures were becoming discolored and that standing water in the fixtures had a "chocolate brown" tint. The McDonalds apprised Mianecki of the situation and were told that inasmuch as the well was newly dug there might be some impurities still present. A commercial stain-remover, "Rust-Raze," was supplied to Mrs. McDonald, who cleaned the discolored fixtures. The stains, however, shortly returned.

Due to the continuing discoloration problem, Mianecki arranged to have the water tested. This test was, in any event, a prerequisite to the obtaining of a certificate of occupancy. The test, performed by third-party defendant Duncan Medical Laboratory, indicated an unacceptably high iron content. Mianecki attempted to rectify this situation through the installation of a water softener/conditioner, manufactured and installed by third-party defendant Deran Sales, Inc. A test performed after the installation of the unit indicated that the water was acceptable and, based upon its results, a certificate of occupancy was granted. Closing of title occurred on November 15, 1972, and two days later the McDonalds settled into their new home.

The problems with the water continued after the McDonalds moved in. Although water tests conducted before March 1973 showed that the water, after passing through the conditioner, met State standards, there was sufficient evidence from which a jury could have determined that the water was non-potable. It is clear that the raw water I. e., water before it passed through the conditioner never satisfied State standards of potability. There was testimony that, among other things, the staining of the fixtures continued; the water had a bad odor and taste; when left standing the water fizzled like "Alka-Seltzer," gave off a vapor and turned colors; clothes washed in the washing machine became stained, as did dishware and utensils when washed in the dishwasher, and coffee would turn deep black and sugar would not dissolve. Furthermore, according to expert testimony, after March 1973 even the treated water continuously failed to meet State standards of potability.

According to plaintiffs, Mianecki was continuously informed about the condition of the water. A number of unsuccessful attempts were made to alleviate the problem. These included replacement of the heating coils, alteration of the back-flushing cycle on the water conditioner, and the installation of a venting system designed to eliminate gas in the water pipes. By the spring of 1973 the relationship between the parties had deteriorated and no further repairs were attempted. Alternative sources of water were suggested but, due to a variety of circumstances, no viable solution was adopted. Although each party alleged that these failures were due to the other's fault, there is sufficient evidence upon which a jury could have found that plaintiffs did not act unreasonably in their attempts to ameliorate the condition.

On March 25, 1974 the plaintiffs instituted the instant suit for damages against Mianecki. The complaint alleged breach of express and implied warranties, fraudulent and negligent misrepresentations, negligent construction of the well and water system and negligent supervision of the construction and water testing. At this time plaintiffs were still residing in the Mine Hill house. In December of 1975, however, they moved to Maryland as a result of Mr. McDonald's job transfer.

Defendant Mianecki, in turn, made claims against the following third party defendants: (1) Bryan Drilling Company, the outfit which had actually drilled the well; (2) Deran Sales, Inc., the company which had installed the conditioner and performed tests on the water; (3) Duncan Medical Laboratory, the entity which had conducted the original tests on the water; and (4) Shire National Corporation and Mine Hill Board of Education, which owned the property adjacent to the McDonald's lot suspected of being the source of contamination.

A bifurcated jury trial was ordered and the trial as to liability commenced on January 19, 1976. Prior to submission of the case to the jury, the third party complaints, except that against Deran, were dismissed by the trial judge without objection from the defendants. The jurors were charged as to fraud and misrepresentation, breach of contract, and breach of implied warranty, and were given special interrogatories to answer. They found that defendants were liable solely for breach of an implied warranty of habitability. Findings of no cause for action were returned as to the other grounds for liability as well as Mianecki's third-party complaint against Deran.

The case then proceeded to a trial as to damages. Evidence was introduced by plaintiffs with respect to the change in the quality of their lives occasioned by the lack of potable water, and as to the staining and odor. The McDonalds testified that in the spring of 1973 they had to discontinue using the water for cooking and drinking purposes, and instead were forced to obtain water by either purchasing it bottled or filling containers at a neighbor's home. Moreover, there was testimony from a real estate agent that the value of the house, assuming a lack of water problems, would be $57,660, but that with such problems the value was only $36,847.

In order to demonstrate that plaintiffs had failed to mitigate damages, Mianecki testified that on January 14, 1976 he sent, through counsel, a letter to the McDonalds offering to buy the house for $50,000. This letter reached the McDonalds on January 17, 1976, just two days before the trial began and three days after the trial was originally scheduled to commence. The proposal contained no mortgage contingency and provided for closing 90 days from the date of the signing of a contract. This offer was refused by the plaintiffs who, on January 20, 1978, signed a contract of sale for the Mine Hill home at a price of $35,000 plus one-half of any excess liability incurred by the McDonalds in paying off the outstanding mortgage and tax assessments. Plaintiffs testified that they had reached oral agreement with the ultimate purchaser prior to receiving Mianecki's proposal and that they understood Mianecki's offer to be an attempt to settle the entire case.

The trial court charged the jurors that in assessing damages they were to place the McDonalds in the position they would have been in had the implied warranty not been breached. Thus, the judge instructed that the McDonalds should be compensated for all damages proximately caused by the breach and within the reasonable contemplation of the parties at the time that the contract was entered into. He further elaborated on the nature of the damages awardable, charging that the McDonalds were entitled to (1) out of pocket expenses, (2) compensation for the deterioration in their quality of living, and (3) the reduction in the fair market value of their home attributable to the defect. 1 Mitigation of damages was explained at length.

The jury returned an award in favor of plaintiffs in the amount of $32,000. Motions for judgment N.O.V., new trial and remittitur were denied by the trial court.

On appeal, defendants sought reversal of the finding of implied warranty of habitability and raised numerous other allegations of error. The Appellate Division affirmed, McDonald v. Mianecki, 159 N.J.Super. 1, 386...

To continue reading

Request your trial
73 cases
  • J. Stiles, Inc. v. Evans
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • October 31, 1984
    ...Inc., 81 N.J. 233, 405 A.2d 788, 789-91 (1979) (applies warranty of good and workmanlike construction), McDonald v. Mianecki, 79 N.J. 275, 398 A.2d 1283, 1292 (1979) (uses Humber -like language); New York, DeRoche v. Dame, 75 A.D.2d 384, 430 N.Y.S.2d 390, 392 (1980), app. dism'd 51 N.Y.2d 8......
  • C.A.M. v. R.A.W.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • January 9, 1990
    ...damages. It is well settled that injured parties have a duty to take reasonable steps to mitigate their damages. McDonald v. Mianecki, 79 N.J. 275, 299, 398 A.2d 1283 (1979). The requirement that plaintiffs mitigate damages prevails as much in the case of damages arising out of tort as it d......
  • Perth Amboy Iron Works, Inc. v. American Home Assur. Co.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • June 30, 1988
    ...damages in breach of warranty cases. In a few cases, however, the appropriate standard is the cost of repairs. McDonald v. Mianecki, 79 N.J. 275, 282 n. 1, 398 A.2d 1283 (1979); see also 525 Main Street Corp. v. Eagle Roofing Co., 34 N.J. 251, 254, 168 A.2d 33 (1961) ("the cost of remedying......
  • Weedo v. Stone-E-Brick, Inc.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • July 18, 1979
    ...it an implied warranty of merchantability and often an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose." McDonald v. Mianecki, 79 N.J. 275, 284, 398 A.2d 1283, 1288 (1979); see also Hodgson v. Chin, 168 N.J.Super. 549, 403 A.2d 942 (App.Div.1979). These warranties arise by operation of......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • Chapter 4 - § 4.3 • BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Residential Construction Law in Colorado (CBA) Chapter 4 Contract Claims Arising From the Construction and Sale of a Home
    • Invalid date
    ...Mazurek, 599 P.2d at 271 (water supply); see also Kirk v. Ridgway, 373 N.W.2d 491 (Iowa 1985) (peeling paint); McDonald v. Mianecki, 398 A.2d 1283 (N.J. 1979) (water potability); Waggoner v. Midwestern Dev., Inc., 154 N.W.2d 803 (S.D. 1967) (water in basement).[67] James W. Bain & Alvin M. ......
  • Chapter 14 - § 14.4 • CONTRACT CLAIMS ARISING FROM THE CONSTRUCTION AND SALE OF A HOME
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Practitioner's Guide to Colorado Construction Law (CBA) Chapter 14 Residential Construction
    • Invalid date
    ...Mazurek, 599 P.2d at 271 (water supply); see also Kirk v. Ridgway, 373 N.W.2d 491 (Iowa 1985) (peeling paint); McDonald v. Mianecki, 398 A.2d 1283 (N.J. 1979) (water potability); Waggoner v. Midwestern Dev., Inc., 154 N.W.2d 803 (S.D. 1967) (water in basement).[885] James W. Bain & Alvin M.......
  • The Builder's Burden of Defective Construction-part Ii
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Colorado Lawyer No. 13-12, December 1984
    • Invalid date
    ..."The Case for an Implied Warranty of Quality in Sales of Real Property," 53 Geo. L.J. 633, 634 (1965). 6. See, e.g., McDonald v. Mianecki, 79 N.J. 275, 398 A.2d 1203 (1979); Pollard, supra, note 1; Love v. Trenholm Bldg. Co., 267 S.C. 497, 229 S.E.2d 728 (1976); Waggoner v. Midwestern Deve.......
  • At home with nature: early reflections on green building laws and the transformation of the built environment.
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Vol. 39 No. 3, June 2009
    • June 22, 2009
    ...the unequal bargaining power of the parties and the importance of safety in the construction industry. See, e.g., McDonald v. Mianecki, 398 A.2d 1283, 1292 (N.J. 1979) (finding an implied warranty of habitability and workmanship in builder-vendor construction contracts); Groff v. Pete Kings......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT