I
{¶ 1} The Ninth District Court of Appeals certified the following issue pursuant to Section 3(B)(4), Article IV, Ohio Constitution and App.R. 25: “[I]n an action
{¶ 2} For the following reasons, we answer the question in the negative and reverse the judgment of the court of appeals.
II
{¶ 3} This case concerns a home built by Design Construction Services, Inc., appellee. The current owners of the home, Michael' and Jennifer Martin, appellants, sued Design Construction over defects in the home stemming from faulty construction. Specifically, the Martins alleged that the walls and foundation of the attached garage required repair due to Design Construction’s negligence.
{¶ 4} The home was built on a sloping lot. Accordingly, earth under the attached garage had been leveled in preparation for pouring the garage floor. While pushing fill dirt inside the garage with a bulldozer, a Design Construction employee applied too much pressure on the dirt, which, in turn, pressed against the exterior walls, causing two of the concrete-block walls to flex outward. Design Construction attempted to repair the bowed walls by excavating around the walls, straightening them, and repairing the cracks in the walls. Satisfied with these repairs, Design Construction completed the building and sold it in 1998. In 1999, Design Construction hired a company to fill the concrete blocks with grout.
{¶ 5} In the summer of 2000, the Martins bought the home. During pre-sale visits to the home, the Martins were made aware of cracks in the facing of the garage foundation walls. These cracks were noted on the property disclosure form, along with a note that a crack had been fixed in 1999. The home-inspection report, which was produced for the Martins, also noted the cracks and advised that such cracks were not unusual for the age of the house and should be monitored for widening.
{¶ 6} When the cracks began to widen in 2004, the Martins assumed that the damage was cosmetic and attempted to address it accordingly. In the process, they discovered that the blocks making up the wall were crumbling and that the grout filling had never set. Realizing that the necessary repairs were going to be more difficult than anticipated, the Martins sought professional help.
{¶ 7} Subsequent consultations with contractors revealed that the problem with the wall was structural. The Martins contacted Design Construction, in the hope that the builder would attend to the repairs. Design Construction admitted that an accident during construction affected the garage walls, but denied any
{¶ 8} Thereafter, the Martins hired a professional engineer and contractors who found that the subjacent footers were not buried far enough below the frost line. Ultimately, two walls were replaced and the footers were repaired at the Martins’ expense.
{¶ 9} In 2005, the Martins brought suit against Design Construction alleging breach of the warranty to perform in a workmanlike manner, breach of the warranty of habitability, and negligence in the construction of the home. A jury returned a general verdict for the Martins of $11,770, as the reasonable cost to repair the defects. The jury also answered interrogatories, two of which are relevant for our purposes. In one, the jury found that Design Construction had been negligent. In the other, the jury found that the Martins had not proved a diminution in the value of their home due to the defects in construction.
{¶ 10} Design Construction appealed, asserting that the Martins had failed to prove a necessary element of damages, namely the difference in the market value of the property with and without the defect. The Ninth District Court of Appeals agreed, holding that proof of the diminution in value of the home was required for a claim of temporary damage to property, i.e., damage that can be repaired, and that the Martins failed to prove such a diminution in value. Accordingly, the court of appeals reversed the trial court’s award of damages.
{¶ 11} The Ninth District Court of Appeals found its judgment to be in conflict with the judgments of the First District Court of Appeals in Adcock v. Rollins Protective Servs. Co. (1981),
Ill
{¶ 12} The issue presented is whether in an action for temporary damage to property, the plaintiff must prove diminution in the market value of the property attributable to the temporary damage. We hold that plaintiffs need not prove diminution in value in order to be awarded damages for temporary injury to property.
{¶ 13} This court first established the measure of damages for temporary injury to real property in Ohio Collieries Co. v. Cocke (1923),
{¶ 14} “If the injury is of a permanent or irreparable nature, the measure of damages is the difference in the market value of the property as a whole, including the improvements thereon, before and after the injury. If the injury is susceptible of repair, the measure of damages is the reasonable cost of restoration, plus reasonable compensation for the loss of the use of the property between the time of the injury and the restoration, unless such cost of restoration exceeds the difference in the market value of the property before and after the injury, in which case the difference in market value becomes the measure.” Ohio Collieries,
{¶ 15} Applying the Ohio Collieries rule to this case, the Ninth District held that the Martins were not entitled to recover the cost of their repairs, because they had failed to prove diminution in value attributable to the injury. Martin v. Design Constr. Servs., Inc., Summit App. No. 23422,
{¶ 16} Other courts of appeals have applied the Ohio Collieries rule similarly, requiring proof of diminution in value as an element of damages for temporary injury to property. See, e.g., Shell Oil Co. v. Huttenbauer Land Co. (1997),
{¶ 17} However, two cases from this court have implicitly limited the holding of Ohio Collieries.
{¶ 18} In the first case, decided just ten years after Ohio Collieries, the negligence of a natural gas company led to the damage of one church building and the destruction of another. Northwestern Ohio Natural Gas Co. v. First
{¶ 19} In First Congregational, the court moved away from strict market-value limits on damages, toward an approach to damages based on the reasonable costs of restoration. With regard to temporary damage, the court in First Congregational excised the diminution-in-value portion of the Ohio Collieries rule and offered instead the unqualified rule that “the measure of damages is the reasonable cost of restoration or repairs.” Id.
{¶20} Concomitantly, the court recognized that where restoration of the property was “impracticable,” the measure of damages would be the “difference between the reasonable value immediately before the damage and the reasonable value immediately afterwards.” Id. The addition of the word “impracticable” to the rule instructs the finder of fact to determine whether repairs are “practicable,” meaning “reasonably capable of being accomplished.” Black’s Law Dictionary (8th Ed.2004) 1210. The import of the word “impracticable,” then, is to focus the factual inquiry on the reasonableness of restoration under the circumstances, not on whether the cost of repairs exceeds the change in the market value of the property.
{¶ 21} First Congregational held that even in cases in which the property has no market value, damages could still be awarded based on the reasonable cost of restoration, with consideration of the condition of the property prior to the damage. First Congregational,
{¶ 22} The second case demonstrating a shift from the Ohio Collieries rule is Apel v. Katz (1998),
{¶ 23} Some courts of appeals have applied a rationale similar to that of First Congregational and Apel in holding that the failure to prove diminution in market value is not fatal to a claim for damages. For instance, the First District Court of Appeals held that the goal of damages is to make the claimant whole, and therefore, even when the cost of repairs exceeds the change in market value attributable to the tort, damages may be recovered. Adcock,
{¶ 24} Now we make express what First Congregational and Apel implied. The rule expressed in Ohio Collieries, that damages for temporary injury to property cannot exceed the difference between market value immediately before and after the injury, is limited. In an action based on temporary injury to noncommercial real estate, a plaintiff need not prove diminution in the market value of the property in order to recover the reasonable costs of restoration, but either party may offer evidence of diminution of the market value of the property as a factor bearing on the reasonableness of the cost of restoration.
{¶ 25} While evidence of loss in market value of the property may be relevant, the essential inquiry is whether the damages sought are reasonable. Either party may introduce evidence to support or refute claims of reasonableness, including evidence of the change in market value attributable to the temporary injury. But proof of diminution in value is not a required element of the injured party’s case.
{¶ 26} Applying this rule to the case before us, we hold that the damages awarded by the trial court are supported by the evidence. The trial court’s instructions informed the jury that the Martins should be made whole, provided that their expenses were reasonable, and did not instruct the jury that a failure to prove diminution in value would prohibit an award.
{¶ 27} Moreover, the award itself appears reasonable under the circumstances. The jury award of $11,770 equals the amount that the Martins paid to repair the defects to a house purchased for $167,000. Although Design Construction offered evidence that the repairs could have been performed for less, it appears that the jury found that the Martins’ expenditures were appropriate. Therefore, it is
IV
{¶ 28} We answer the certified question in the negative and reverse the judgment of the court of appeals. The court of appeals decided this case on Design Construction’s first assignment of error and declined to address the merits of the remaining assignments of error, viewing them as moot. Therefore, this cause is remanded for consideration of the third assignment of error raised by Design Construction in the court of appeals, regarding the statute of limitations.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.