Reamensnyder v. Marino
127 N.E.3d 340
Oh. Ct. App. 11th Dist. Trumbu...2018Background
- In May 2013 Marino installed a driveway for Reamensnyder for $6,900, paid in full. Cracking/chipping occurred in winter 2014 along a ~6-foot area abutting steps where no expansion joints were placed.
- Both parties agreed water runoff that pooled and froze caused the damage; they disputed whether the landscaping changed after installation (Marino: landscaping changed; Reamensnyder: it did not).
- Marino's proposal disclaimed any guarantee that concrete would not crack but promised work "in a workmanlike manner according to standard practices."
- Reamensnyder sought $1,500 in Small Claims court for repair; the magistrate inspected the driveway, found for Reamensnyder, and awarded $1,500. The trial court adopted the magistrate's decision after Marino objected and retained counsel but no new evidence was taken.
- Marino appealed, arguing the court erred by deciding a construction-standard negligence claim without expert testimony to establish breach of the applicable workmanship standard.
Issues
| Issue | Reamensnyder's Argument | Marino's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether expert testimony was required to prove contractor breached duty of care/workmanlike performance | Marino failed to use expansion joints and should be held liable based on lay testimony and inspection | Technical construction standards require expert proof; no evidence Marino deviated from customary practice | Expert testimony was required because proving breach of professional workmanship standards implicates technical matters beyond common knowledge; trial court abused its discretion in adopting magistrate's decision without such evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- McInnis v. Hyatt Legal Clinics, 10 Ohio St.3d 112 (1984) (expert testimony generally required to prove professional standards of performance; not required when matter is within common knowledge)
- Floyd v. United Home Imp. Ctr., Inc., 119 Ohio App.3d 716 (1997) (to recover for lack of workmanlike performance plaintiff must show defendant failed to exercise ordinary care and skill and that failure proximately caused damages)