Dement Construction Company, LLC v. Lucas C. Nemeth
M2015-02204-COA-R3-CV
Tenn. Ct. App.Dec 20, 2016Background
- Dement Construction stored excess topsoil on the Nemeths’ property by oral agreement during a City road project; disputes arose over removal and alleged property damage.
- Dement sued for replevin and injunctive relief after alleging the Nemeths prevented soil retrieval; court allowed Dement to remove the soil upon posting a bond.
- The Nemeths counterclaimed for misrepresentation and property damage, alleging heavy equipment use and deception about the amount of overflow onto their land.
- A five-day jury trial addressed the Nemeths’ counterclaim; Dement conceded it was not pursuing monetary relief against the Nemeths at pretrial.
- During trial the court permitted anonymous juror questions to a Nemeth witness, excluded testimony about “special benefits” tied to eminent domain, and refused the Nemeths’ proposed curative jury instruction.
- The jury found for Dement on liability (so damages were not reached); the Nemeths appealed, challenging the juror questions, exclusion of eminent-domain-related testimony, and denial of the curative instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Nemeths’ Argument | Dement’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred by allowing juror questions about the road’s benefit and property value | Juror questions were irrelevant and prejudicial because trial concerned whether Dement damaged the property | Juror questions were within court’s discretion and relevant to whether alleged damage affected property value | Court affirmed: juror questions were relevant to property-value issues and not unduly prejudicial; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether parties should have been allowed to ask follow-up questions after juror questions | Nemeths argued they needed to probe witness responses to clarify issues opened by juror questions | Dement argued follow-ups were unnecessary and court controls scope of examination | Court affirmed: trial judge reasonably denied follow-ups under discretionary control of witness examination |
| Whether testimony about "special benefits" (eminent domain concept) was admissible | Nemeths sought to introduce eminent-domain/special-benefit testimony to offset damages | Dement argued eminent domain is inapplicable to private dispute and testimony was irrelevant | Court affirmed exclusion: eminent domain/special benefits irrelevant to private tort/contract dispute; exclusion not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether court erred by refusing Nemeths’ curative jury instruction telling jurors not to consider road-related enhancement | Nemeths said instruction was necessary because juror questioning had introduced road benefits as a factor | Dement argued instruction unnecessary and risks confusing jury about issues actually in suit | Court affirmed refusal: jury found no liability so damages issue never reached; no showing denial prejudiced outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Caughron, 855 S.W.2d 526 (Tenn. 1993) (trial judge has broad discretion to control course and conduct of jury trials)
- Mercer v. Vanderbilt Univ., Inc., 134 S.W.3d 121 (Tenn. 2004) (admission/exclusion of evidence reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Goodale v. Langenberg, 243 S.W.3d 575 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007) (relevant evidence should be excluded under Rule 403 only sparingly)
- Nye v. Bayer Cropscience, Inc., 347 S.W.3d 686 (Tenn. 2011) (trial courts must give substantially accurate instructions defining legal issues)
- Spencer v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 450 S.W.3d 507 (Tenn. 2014) (standard for evaluating jury instructions and reversal requires prejudice shown)
- Otis v. Cambridge Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 850 S.W.2d 439 (Tenn. 1992) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Johnson v. Tenn. Farmers Mut. Ins. Co., 205 S.W.3d 365 (Tenn. 2006) (refusal of special jury instruction requires showing that denial prejudiced requesting party)