Jalbert v. Eagle Rigid Spans, Inc.
2017 ND 50
| N.D. | 2017Background
- ERS contracted to build a multi-purpose building for the Jalberts with a stated contract price of $374,879; the Jalberts testified total payments for completion were about $599,914 and payments to ERS were about $344,116.58.
- After construction the Jalberts discovered structural problems and sued ERS for breach of contract and breach of warranty.
- First trial ended in mistrial; a two-day second jury trial produced testimony from Jalberts’ expert (building not code-compliant) and a general contractor (demolition costs $48,000–$80,000).
- Jury awarded the Jalberts $650,000 plus interest, and costs/disbursements totaling $877,407.78; the district court slightly reduced costs on amendment.
- ERS moved for a new trial challenging trial scheduling/time allocation, cancellation of a juror site visit, excessiveness of damages (passion/prejudice), insufficiency of evidence, and later objected to expert fees.
- The district court denied the new trial motion; ERS appeals and the Supreme Court of North Dakota affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Jalbert's Argument | ERS's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial scheduling/time allocation | Two-day trial was adequate and parties had notice to plan | Two days (not three) and time allocation prejudiced ERS; counsel was rushed and evidence limited | Court did not abuse discretion; parties had notice and ERS gave no offer of proof showing prejudice |
| Cancellation of jury site visit | Site visit not necessary; court has discretion and cited travel/time reasons | Site visit crucial given competing experts and complex damages | Court acted within discretion in cancelling the site visit due to travel/time concerns |
| Excessive damages / passion or prejudice | Damages supported by testimony; instructions allowed recovery beyond contract price | Verdict improperly included unrelated contractor costs and was driven by sympathy (alleged insurance-fraud references) | Verdict not excessive; no preserved objection to closing argument comment so waiver; award within range of evidence |
| Sufficiency of evidence for damages | Evidence (payments, expert proof of deficiency, demolition estimates) permitted jury to assess difference in value | No testimony on actual value of building; jury lacked basis to calculate diminution in value | Sufficient evidence existed; verdict not manifestly against weight of evidence; jury presumed to follow instructions |
| Expert witness fee reduction (costs) | District court reduced costs slightly; fees reasonable | Expert fee objection raised after judgment but not in new-trial motion | Issue waived on appeal because ERS did not raise fee objection in its new-trial motion |
Key Cases Cited
- Bjorneby v. Nodak Mut. Ins. Co., 882 N.W.2d 232 (N.D. 2016) (denial of new trial reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Wahl v. Northern Imp. Co., 800 N.W.2d 700 (N.D. 2011) (scheduling trial days—parties must plan presentations when given notice)
- Hartleib v. Simes, 776 N.W.2d 217 (N.D. 2009) (trial-court discretion over presentation and witness limits)
- Blessum v. Shelver, 567 N.W.2d 844 (N.D. 1997) (new-trial standard for excessive damages)
- Gisvold v. Windbreak, Inc., 730 N.W.2d 597 (N.D. 2007) (trial court may set aside verdict only when manifestly against weight of evidence)
- Westby v. Schmidt, 779 N.W.2d 681 (N.D. 2010) (award of damages sustained when within range of evidence)
- Krueger v. Grand Forks County, 852 N.W.2d 354 (N.D. 2014) (failure to object during trial waives argument on appeal)
- Andrews v. O’Hearn, 387 N.W.2d 716 (N.D. 1986) (issues not raised in new-trial motion are generally waived on appeal)