Teri Sneberger v. Jerry Morrison, d/b/a Jerry Morrison Construction
235 W. Va. 654
W. Va.2015Background
- Sneberger hired Morrison (unlicensed) orally to build a rustic log home and Phillips as a mason to build a chimney and basement walls; no written contracts. Construction began March 2010; Sneberger later fired Morrison and hired others to remediate alleged defects.
- Sneberger sued Morrison and Phillips for fraud/misrepresentation, breach of contract, negligence, breach of implied warranties (habitability/merchantability), outrageous conduct, and punitive damages. Case tried to a jury in August 2013.
- After Sneberger’s case-in-chief, the court granted Phillips’s Rule 50(a) motion and dismissed him; the jury ultimately found Morrison negligent, awarded $40,000, but apportioned fault 60% to Morrison and 40% to Sneberger. Judgment reduced for comparative fault.
- Sneberger appealed, arguing (inter alia) the trial court abused its discretion by imposing time limits mid-trial, improperly limited expert testimony, erred on Rule 50 rulings, gave improper jury instructions (comparative negligence; language in outrageous-conduct charge), and abused its discretion in denying a new trial.
- The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed: (1) time limits were proper because parties had agreed to a three-day trial; (2) expert testimony limits were within the court’s discretion where witnesses disclaimed masonry expertise; (3) granting JMOL for Phillips was supported by insufficient evidence of duty/breach; (4) denying JMOL for Morrison was proper because Morrison produced evidence and the jury could find shared fault; (5) jury instructions were supported by the record; (6) denial of a new trial was not an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Sneberger's Argument | Morrison/Phillips' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial time limits | Court unfairly imposed a 3‑day/time split mid-trial, prejudicing her presentation | Parties agreed pretrial the case could be tried in three days; court reasonably managed time | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion — parties agreed to three‑day schedule; no proffer of excluded evidence |
| Limits on expert testimony | Experts should have been allowed to opine on masonry/chimney defects | Experts disclaimed masonry expertise; gatekeeper excluded opinions beyond qualifications | Affirmed: trial court properly limited opinions under Rule 702; disputes go to weight not admissibility, but a witness cannot opine outside claimed expertise |
| JMOL for Phillips; denial of JMOL for Morrison | Phillips was liable (negligence, warranties, fraud, outrageous conduct); Morrison liable as sole responsible party | Evidence showed Phillips reasonably relied on Morrison; no evidence Phillips controlled or knew defects; Morrison presented defenses and evidence of shared fault | Affirmed: JMOL for Phillips was proper (no prima facie proof of duty/breach); denial of JMOL for Morrison proper because factual disputes warranted jury determination |
| Jury instructions (comparative negligence; outrageous conduct language) | Comparative negligence unsupported; outrageous instruction included unnecessary dicta | Evidence supported jury consideration of Sneberger’s role; Restatement language is consistent with WV caselaw | Affirmed: comparative negligence instruction supported by evidence; additional language in outrage charge was not incorrect and was permissible |
Key Cases Cited
- McDougal v. McCammon, 193 W.Va. 229 (trial court evidentiary/procedural rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Caruso v. Pearce, 223 W.Va. 544 (Rule 16 supports active case management and time limits)
- Gentry v. Mangum, 195 W.Va. 512 (expert qualification two‑step inquiry under Rule 702)
- Mayhorn v. Logan Med. Found., 193 W.Va. 42 (Rule 702 is the paramount authority for expert admissibility)
- Helmick v. Potomac Edison Co., 185 W.Va. 269 (admissibility of expert testimony is within trial court discretion)
- Kiser v. Caudill (Kiser I), 210 W.Va. 191 (expert limited to his field when he disclaims a specialty)
- Kiser v. Caudill (Kiser II), 215 W.Va. 403 (expert disqualified where only casual familiarity with standard of care)
- Harless v. First Nat’l Bank, 169 W.Va. 673 (elements of actionable outrageous conduct)
- Tennant v. Marion Health Care Found., 194 W.Va. 97 (jury instruction formulation reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Burke‑Parsons‑Bowlby Corp. v. Rice, 230 W.Va. 105 (standard of review for new‑trial rulings)