Technical Constr. Specialties v. Cooper
2011 Ohio 5252
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- TCS contracted with Entertainment to install 45 helical piers to depth of at least 45 feet for a total price of $56,783.
- Work began November 8, 2004; the first pier went in at 86 feet, prompting concern and a plan to triangulate the area.
- While on-site, TCS installed additional piers (up to 80+ feet) before Rogers, the project manager, returned from another site.
- Rogers testified he did not authorize continued drilling beyond triangulation and did not approve extra costs until a change order for $51,000 was issued after the fact.
- Entertainment refused to pay the added costs, leading to litigation by TCS for contract damages and removal costs.
- The jury awarded $14,876.45 in damages, and the trial court denied motions for a new trial and JNOV; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the damages award is against the manifest weight of the evidence | TCS: damages were justified by unauthorized overages and removal costs | Entertainment: no authorization to continue; damages overstated | No; verdict not against weight of evidence |
| Whether the denial of a new trial as to damages was an abuse of discretion | TCS: trial court should grant new trial due to inadequate damages | Entertainment: court properly exercised discretion | No; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether the denial of JNOV as to damages was proper | TCS: judgment should be reconsidered in light of the evidence | Entertainment: evidence supports the verdict | Yes; JNOV properly denied; damages supported by evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Const. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 (Ohio 1978) (standard for manifest weight review in civil cases)
- Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. v. Easley, 90 Ohio App.3d 525 (Ohio App. 1993) (standard on sufficiency of evidence in reviewing a verdict)
- Moskovitz v. Mt. Sinai Med. Ctr., 69 Ohio St.3d 638 (Ohio 1994) (damages generally within jury’s purview; no reversal without passion or prejudice)
- Weidner v. Blazic, 98 Ohio App.3d 321 (Ohio App. 1994) (damages review; jury’s discretion intact)
- Pena v. N.E. Ohio Emergency Affiliates, Inc., 108 Ohio App.3d 96 (Ohio App. 1995) (no reversal where damages are not so disproportionate as to shock sensibilities)
- Bobb Forest Products, Inc. v. Morbark Industries, Inc., 151 Ohio App.3d 63 (Ohio App. 2002) (proper jury interrogatories test correctness of the verdict)
- Freeman v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 69 Ohio St.3d 611 (Ohio 1994) (importance of interrogatories/tests for verdict validity)