Stanley Smith & Sons v. Limestone College, 0303

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Writing for the Court: BELL
• Citation: 283 S.C. 430,322 S.E.2d 474
• Decision Date: 20 June 1984
• Docket Number: No. 0303,0303
• Parties: STANLEY SMITH & SONS, Respondent, v. LIMESTONE COLLEGE, The Board of Public Works of the City of Gaffney, Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, Jack E. Millwood, Basil H. Clary, Sr., and Joe Dean Knuckles, of whom The Board of Public Works of the City of Gaffney is the Appellant. Appeal of BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS OF CITY OF GAFFNEY. . Heard

Page 474

322 S.E.2d 474 283 S.C. 430 STANLEY SMITH & SONS, Respondent,
v.
LIMESTONE COLLEGE, The Board of Public Works of the City of
Gaffney, Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company,
Jack E. Millwood, Basil H. Clary, Sr.,
and Joe Dean Knuckles,
of whom The Board of Public Works of the City of Gaffney is
the Appellant.
Appeal of BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS OF CITY OF GAFFNEY. No. 0303. Court of Appeals of South Carolina. Heard June 20, 1984.
Decided Oct. 29, 1984.

Page 476

[283 S.C. 432] James R. Thompson, of Saint-Amand, Thompson & Brown, Gaffney, for appellant.

F. Glenn Smith, Columbia, for respondent.

BELL, Judge:

This is an action in contract for damages. The jury returned a verdict for $37,255.24 in favor of Stanley Smith & Sons. The Board of Public Works appeals, asserting no contract exists between the parties as a matter of law. We reverse.

In March 1976, Stanley Smith contracted with Limestone College in Gaffney to construct a gymnasium on campus. The building was completed on or before October 1, 1976, at a cost to the College of $655,178. On October 1, 1976, Gaffney experienced extraordinarily heavy rainfall. Flood waters backed up through the sewer system of the gymnasium, doing serious damage to the property. Stanley Smith repaired the damage at a cost of $37,255.24. It then sued the College, the Board of Public Works, and the Board's insurance carrier for payment. At preliminary stages in the suit, the claims against the insurance carrier, the College, and the individual defendants were dismissed. The case went to trial against the Board alone. Stanley Smith tried the case on the theory that an implied contract existed between it and the Board to repair the flood damage on a "cost-plus" basis.

At appropriate stages of the trial, the Board moved for a nonsuit, a directed verdict, and for judgment non obstante veredicto on the ground that Stanley Smith failed to prove an implied contract. The Board appeals from the circuit court's denial of these motions.

In deciding motions for a nonsuit, for a directed verdict, or for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the trial judge must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Dunsil v. E.M. Jones Chevrolet Co., 268 S.C. 291, 233 S.E.2d 101 (1977); Allstate Insurance Co. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 260 S.C. 350, 195 S.E.2d 711 (1973); Melton v. Williams, 281 S.C. 182, 314 S.E.2d 612 (S.C.App.1984). If more than one reasonable inference can be drawn from the [283 S.C. 433] evidence when so viewed, this Court will not reverse the trial judge's ruling denying the motions. Mylin v. Allen-White Pontiac, 281 S.C. 174, 314 S.E.2d 354 (S.C.App.1984). On the other hand, if there is no evidence to support an essential element of the plaintiff's cause of action, the case should not be submitted to the jury, and a verdict in the plaintiff's favor cannot be permitted to stand. Young v. Tide Craft, Inc., 270 S.C. 453, 242 S.E.2d 671, 1 A.L.R. 4th 394 (1978).

Page 477

Stanley Smith brought this action in contract. A contract is an obligation which arises from actual agreement of the parties manifested by words, oral or written, or by conduct. Gaskins v. Blue Cross-Blue Shield of South Carolina, 271 S.C. 101, 245 S.E.2d 598 (1978); Moore v. Palmetto State Life Insurance Co., 222 S.C. 492, 73 S.E.2d 688 (1952). If agreement is manifested by words, the contract is said to be express. Thomas v. Lomax, 82 Ga.App. 592, 61 S.E.2d 790 (1950). If it is manifested by conduct, it is said to be implied. Dowling v. Charleston & W.C. Ry. Co., 105 S.C. 475, ...