The place the jury apparently credited plaintiff’s professional and located that defendant engineering agency was chargeable for skilled negligence associated to a big park and marina challenge, the jury verdict for defendant was affirmed.
In TMS Contracting, LLC v. SmithGroup JJR, Inc., No. M2020-01028-COA-R3-CV, 2022 WL 4112415 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 9, 2022), plaintiff was the final contractor on a park and marina challenge, and it filed this skilled negligence declare in opposition to defendant engineering agency associated to a number of points with the challenge. The case was tried in entrance of a jury, and in the course of the trial solely plaintiff offered testimony from an professional. Reasonably than hiring an professional, defendant countered plaintiff’s proof primarily with testimony from its challenge supervisor.
The jury finally discovered that defendant was chargeable for skilled negligence and awarded damages to plaintiff. On this enchantment, defendant raised three points: 1) whether or not the jury verdict was “irreconcilably inconsistent,” 2) whether or not plaintiff’s professional was certified to testify as an professional, and three) whether or not there was materials proof to assist the decision.
The Court docket of Appeals first thought-about whether or not the jury verdict was “irreconcilably inconsistent,” as verdicts which are “inconsistent and irreconcilable” should be reversed and remanded for brand spanking new trial. (inner quotation omitted). Defendant argued that the jury erred as a result of it responded on the decision kind that plaintiff was not “at fault” with respect to any of the claims, however on a subsequent query it “attributed small percentages of fault to [plaintiff] on every declare.” Additional, the jury did not award any damages to plaintiff on one explicit declare. Noting that it should “construe the decision in a way that upholds the jury’s findings if in any respect attainable,” the Court docket dominated that the decision was not irreconcilable, explaining:
The jury’s conflicting findings on fault could also be reconciled utilizing bizarre ideas of comparative fault. The jury plainly supposed to rule in [plaintiff]’s favor. It discovered that [defendant] breached the usual of care with respect to every declare. And it discovered that [plaintiff] was lower than 50% at fault with respect to every declare. Below Tennessee’s system of comparative fault, a plaintiff who’s lower than fifty % at fault might recuperate damages in an quantity decreased by the proportion of fault assigned to the plaintiff.
(inner citations and citation omitted). The Court docket additionally reconciled the failure to award damages on one explicit declare, reasoning that the delay attributable to that subject was included within the damages for an additional declare, and that awarding delay damages on each claims would have resulted in double restoration.
Defendant subsequent challenged the {qualifications} of plaintiff’s professional witness. The professional was an architect with over fifty years of expertise, however defendant argued that “as a result of he was not educated as an engineer and his engineering expertise was woefully out-of-date,” he mustn’t have been allowed to testify about engineering requirements. The Court docket identified that the professional admitted that he had not used his engineering abilities in additional than 20 years, that he didn’t have a level in engineering (although he had taken engineering programs), and that he “couldn’t clarify trendy engineering software program[.]” Nonetheless, the Court docket dominated that it was not an abuse of discretion to permit the professional to testify, as he was “educated on the related matters,” and the Court docket said that the objections raised by defendant went “to the burden of [defendant’s] testimony, not his admissibility.”
Lastly, defendant argued that there was not materials proof to assist the jury discovering for plaintiff on every declare {of professional} negligence. Materials proof is a low commonplace to fulfill, and the Court docket of Appeals discovered materials proof within the testimony provided by plaintiff and plaintiff’s professional to assist every declare, together with the declare for damages attributable to the development delay.
Having dominated that the decision was not irreconcilable, that admission of the professional was not an abuse of discretion, and that there was materials proof to assist the jury verdict, the decision was affirmed.
This opinion was launched 11 months after oral arguments on this case.
