HARRINGTON v HOLIDAY RAMBLER CORP

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 13662 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1977 MOODY J. HARRINGTON and V I C HARRINGTON, husband and wife, ~ Plaintiffs and Respondents, -vsHOLIDAY RAMBLER CORPORATION, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, Hon. Nat Allen, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Church, Harris, Johnson & Williams, Great Falls, Montana Donald LaBar argued and Earl Hanson argued, Great Falls, Montana For Respondents: Hoyt and Bottomly, Great Falls, Montana John Hoyt argued and Tom Lewis argued, Great Falls, Montana Submitted: November 28, 1977 JAN 13 1978 ~ecided: JAN 1 3 1978 M r . J u s t i c e Gene B . Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court: P l a i n t i f f s Moody J . Harrington and Vicki Harrington commenced t h i s a c t i o n i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court, Cascade County, a l l e g i n g fraud and breach of warranty t o recover damages from a l l e g e d d e f e c t s i n a t r a v e l t r a i l e r purchased by them from Holiday Rambler Corporation. The j u r y returned a v e r d i c t f o r both g e n e r a l damags and p u n i t i v e damages i n favor of Harringtons. From t h i s f i n a l judgment Holiday Rambler appealed. Holiday Rambler i s a manufacturer of t r a v e l t r a i l e r s and s e l l s t h e s e t r a i l e r s t o q u a l i f i e d independent d e a l e r s throughout t h e United S t a t e s , who i n t u r n s e l l d i r e c t l y t o t h e p u b l i c . The t r a i l e r involved i n t h e i n s t a n t l i t i g a t i o n i s a 1972 model Holiday Rambler Travel T r a i l e r constructed by defendant i n Wakarusa, Indiana, i n September 1971. Similar t o t h e auto- mobile b u s i n e s s , t h e t r a v e l t r a i l e r business manufactures some of t h e new models p r i o r t o t h e beginning of a calendar y e a r , and t h e t r a v e l t r a i l e r i n question h e r e was one of t h e f i r s t of t h e 1972 models produced i n t h e f a l l of 1971. It was 8 f e e t wide and 31 f e e t long with tandem a x l e s . A independent Spokane, Washington d e a l e r , Don King, n t r a n s p o r t e d t h e t r a i l e r t o Spokane from t h e f a c t o r y a f t e r a d e a l e r s ' meeting i n September 1971. Before t h e t r a i l e r l e f t t h e f a c t o r y i t s v a r i o u s components, including t h e LP gas system, plumbing system, water system, and e l e c t r i c a l system were checked and approved. The d e a l e r , Don King, who was never made a p a r t y t o t h e a c t i o n , b u t t e s t i f i e d t h e same systems were checked f o r t h e Harringtons p r i o r t o t h e time they purchased t h e t r a i l e r and took d e l i v e r y i n Spokane, Washington, on March 6 , 1972. - 2 - The t o t a l purchase p r i c e of t h e t r a v e l t r a i l e r was $9,506.90. They paid $2,506.90 down, and t h e remaining balance of $7,000 was financed over 7 years a t 1 2 percent i n t e r e s t . On March 11, 1972, t h e Harringtons l e f t Spokane f o r Great F a l l s , Montana and a f t e r they s e t t l e d i n Montana they complained of d e f e c t s i n t h e t r a i l e r t o Holiday Rambler. At t h a t time Holiday Rambler o f f e r e d , i n w r i t i n g , t o make r e p a i r s t o t h e t o t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n of t h e Harringtons without c o s t only i f t h e Harringtons would b r i n g the t r a i l e r t o t h e f a c t o r y a t Wakarusa, Indiana. They refused t h i s o f f e r of r e p a i r and i n s i s t e d on a new t r a i l e r . I n August 1972, t h e t r a i l e r was parked a d j a c e n t t o t h e home of t h e Harringtons' a t t o r n e y and l e f t t h e r e u n t i l t h e time of t r i a l i n November 1976. I t was s t o r e d o u t s i d e , exposed t o t h e elements and was vandalized on one occasion. The warranty had s e v e r a l months t o run a t t h e time t h e t r a i l e r was l e f t with the attorney. A f t e r t h e t r a i l e r was parked a t t h e l o t of t h e i r a t t o r n e y no r e p a i r r e q u e s t s were made by t h e Harringtons, no e f f o r t s were made t o e i t h e r r e p a i r o r s e l l t h e t r a i l e r , and i t was abandoned and d e p r e c i a t i n g u n t i l t h e time of t r i a l . Monthly payments t o t h e finance company eventually ceased i n l a t e 1973. Holiday Rambler defended p r i n c i p a l l y upon t h e grounds t h e Harringtons i n t e n t i o n a l l y relinquished any claims they might otherwise have had a f t e r they r e j e c t e d the c l e a r , unequivocal o f f e r t o r e p a i r made by Holiday Rambler t o Harringtons. Further, Holiday Rambler claimed t h a t Harringtons f a i l e d t o m i t i g a t e t h e i r damages and contended i t never was given a reasonable opportunity t o repair the t r a v e l t r a i l e r . The case was t r i e d before a j u r y commencing on November 8 , 1976 and continued u n t i l November 11, 1976. The j u r y returned a v e r d i c t i n favor of p l a i n t i f f s and a g a i n s t defendant, a s s e s s i n g $17,691.90 i n g e n e r a l damages and $20,000 i n p u n i t i v e damages. The i s s u e s presented f o r review a r e : 1. Whether the v e r d i c t f o r general damages i n favor of p l a i n t i f f s was supported by s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e evidence? 2. Did t h e c o u r t commit r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r i n o v e r r u l i n g defendant's o b j e c t i o n t o p l a i n t i f f s ' testimony concerning opinions a s t o causation of physical i l l n e s s ? 3. Did t h e c o u r t commit r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r i n giving p l a i n t i f f s ' proposed i n s t r u c t i o n on p u n i t i v e damages? 4. Did t h e c o u r t commit r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r i n g i v i n g p l a i n t i f f s ' proposed i n s t r u c t i o n on "implied malice"? 5. Did t h e c o u r t commit r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r i n denying defendant's motions f o r d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t s on t h e i s s u e s o f : a . a c t u a l fraud; b. c o n s t r u c t i v e fraud; and c. strict liability. I s s u e 1. I n Strong v. Williams, (1969), 154 Mont. 65, 68, 460 P.2d 90, t h i s Court s a i d : "It i s well s e t t l e d i n t h i s j u r i s d i c t i o n t h a t wherever t h e r e i s a c o n f l i c t i n t h e evidence t h i s Court may only review t h e testimony f o r t h e purpose of determining whether t h e r e i s any s u b s t a n t i a l evidence i n t h e record t o support t h e v e r d i c t Where t h e evidence i s c o n f l i c t i n g , b u t s u b s t a n t i a l evidence appears i n t h e record t o support t h e judgment, t h e judgment w i l l not be d i s t u r b e d on appeal * * *. * * *." See a l s o : Kirby v. Kelly, (1972), 161Mont. 66, 504 P.2d 683; Davis v. Davis, (1972), 159 Mont. 355, 497 P.2d 315. I t i s apparent from t h e record t h a t t h e jury a s a matter of law misconstrued t h e c o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n on t h e measure of damages f o r breach of warranty i . e . , t h e d i f f e r e n c e between t h e value of t h e goods accepted and t h e value they would have had i f they had been a s warranted. The j u r y awarded t h e sum of $12,691.90 f o r t h e t r a i l e r a s a p a r t of t h e g e n e r a l damages. The t o t a l p r i c e paid by p l a i n t i f f s f o r t h e t r a i l e r was $9,506.90. That p r i c e included options and s e r v i c e s which were sold t o them d i r e c t l y by Don King T r a i l e r S a l e s and were not warranted products on t h e t r a i l e r when t h e t r a i l e r was s o l d by Holiday Rambler t o Don King. These added options and s e r v i c e s had a t o t a l value of $1,506.90. The jury awarded t h e value of t h e e n t i r e r e t a i l value of t h e t r a i l e r , t h e value of a l l t h e s e r v i c e s and options supplied by Don King, and i n a d d i t i o n awarded t h e t o t a l amount of time charges f o r t h e e n t i r e amount of t h e s a l e s c o n t r a c t , a l l of which amounted t o $12,691.90. Although t h e r e a r e b u t a few cases on t h i s p o i n t , i t i s t h e r u l e of law t h a t a consumer purchaser cannot recover t h e purchase p r i c e from t h e manufacturer who was n o t a party t o t h e s a l e on t h e grounds of breach of w a r r a n t i e s . Carlson v. Shepbxd-Pontiac, I n c . , (1970), 63 Misc.2d 994, 314 N.Y.S.2d r u l e i s apparent i n t h e i n s t a n t case. 77. The reason f o r t h i s The defendant, Holiday Rambler, d i d n o t r e c e i v e t h e s a l e s p r i c e . The a c t u a l s a l e s p r i c e which included the d e a l e r ' s p r o f i t was received and r e t a i n e d by Don King, t h e independent d e a l e r , who was n o t a p a r t y t o t h i s action. The only money received by Holiday Rambler was t h e wholesale p r f c e which was paid by Don King t o Holiday Rambler. Therefore, Harringtons would have t o j o i n t h e d e a l e r a s a p a r t y and sue f o r r e c i s s i o n t o recover t h e f u l l purchase p r i c e , which included t h e d e a l e r ' s p r o f i t s . T h i s , p l a i n t i f f s f a i l e d t o do. The j u r y awarded damages f o r t h e f u l l purchase p r i c e which included t h e brake c o n t r o l s , awning, t r a i l e r h i t c h , a l l i t e m s not manufactured o r supplied by Holiday Rambler. Also, Holiday Rambler had no p a r t i n t h e financing, which was handled through the dealer. Holiday Rambler contends t h a t i t i s a u n i v e r s a l r u l e t h a t a p a r t y must m i t i g a t e a l l of h i s damages. Holiday f e e l s t h a t Harringtons' f a i l e d t o m i t i g a t e damages by n o t having t h e t r a i l e r r e p a i r e d by a t h i r d p a r t y , f a i l i n g t o cover by purchasing a s u b s t i t u t e t r a i l e r and continuing t o use the t r a i l e r a f t e r they knew of d e f e c t s . This d o c t r i n e of avoidable consequence i s properly s t a t e d i n Spackman v. Ralph M. Parsons Co., (1966), 147 Mont. 500, 505, 414 P.2d 918, 921, where t h i s Court held: "The duty t o reduce o r m i t i g a t e damages i s a p o s i t i v e one upon t h e i n j u r e d person, b u t i t has l i m i t s . The t e s t i s : What would an ordinary prudent person be expected t o do i f capable, under t h e circumstances?" The record d i s c l o s e s t h e Harringtons d i d everything w i t h i n t h e i r power t o have t h e t r a i l e r r e p a i r e d by t h e authorized Holiday Rambler d e a l e r . They d i d n o t take i t t o a t h i r d party t o be r e p a i r e d because they were f e a r f u l of voiding t h e warranty. A suggestion t h a t Harringtons should have t o buy another t r a i l e r f o r some $9,000 i s c l e a r l y n o t within t h e d o c t r i n e . Harringtons had no o t h e r choice b u t t o use t h e t r a i l e r a f t e r they discovered the defect. I t was serving a s the family home because of a severe housing shortage i n Great F a l l s when t h e family a r r i v e d there. A s s t a t e d , t h e jury i n awarding damages f a i l e d t o : (1) S u b t r a c t o u t a c c e s s o r i e s and s e r v i c e s t o t a l i n g $1,506.90 f o r which Holiday Rambler d i d n o t warrant and i s not liable. (2) Take i n t o account t h a t Holiday Rambler i s n o t l i a b l e f o r finance charges which t o t a l e d $3,185. There i s s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e evidence t o support a proper v e r d i c t computed a s : General Damages Given by D i s t r i c t Court Less Services & Accessories Less Finance Charge Proper award I s s u e 2. $17,691.90 -1,506.90 -3,185.00 $13,000.00. Holiday Rambler contends t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n o v e r r u l i n g i t s o b j e c t i o n t o unqualified opinion evidence given by M r . Harrington regarding causation of p h y s i c a l i l l n e s s . r i n g t o n s presented no medical testimony of a physician. Har- They presented no copies of medical records o r b i l l s of any doctor o r hospital. The only proof of any physical s i c k n e s s caused t h e Harringtons due t o d e f e c t s i n t h e t r a i l e r was given by t h e Harringtons themselves. The testimony given by Moody Harrington should n o t have been admitted over o b j e c t i o n of counsel. The testimony speculated a s t o t h e cause of sickness incurred by Harringtons while l i v i n g i n t h e t r a i l e r . Moody Harrington was n o t q u a l i f i e d t o make such conclusions and a l l h i s testimony was self-serving. However, t h i s e r r o r by t h e t r i a l judge was harmless i n view of testimony of physical i n j u r y and i l l n e s s t o t h e Harringtons by way of Vicki Harrington which was admitted i n t o evidence without o b j e c t i o n of defense counsel. This testimony was, i n p a r t : N w were t h e r e any o t h e r d e f e c t s i n t h e t r a i l e r o t h a t you n o t i c e d ? A. Yes, t h e r e were. "Q. T e l l t h e j u r y about those? A. The f r o n t window i n t h e t r a i l e r leaked, and t h e r e were some sharp edges on t h e t a b l e , and m daughter c u t h e r f i n g e r twice on y that. "Q. "Q. Now, was t h e r e a gas leak i n t h e t r a i l e r a t any time? A. Yes, t h e r e was, a s e r i o u s gas leak. "Q. A l l r i g h t , how s e r i o u s ? A. Well, f o r t h r e e weeks w e kept g e t t i n g s i c k , w e l l , I should say, t h e y c h i l d r e n and I , you know, because m husband was gone q u i t e a b i t of t h e time, and so we were g e t t i n g s i c k more than he did. The way i t s t a r t e d o u t , I s t a r t e d g e t t i n g headaches g a l o r e , and was nauseous a l l t h e t i m e , i n f a c t , I thought t h a t t h e r e was maybe somet h i n g e l s e t h a t was wrong, which t h e r e w a s n ' t , b u t w e j u s t kept g e t t i n g s i c k e r and s i c k e r , and t h e headaches wouldn't go away, and i f w e went away f o r a v i s i t , o r went shopping f o r t h e day, t h e headaches would d i s a p p e r , and we would come home a t n i g h t , and we would be i n t h e t r a i l e r f o r t h i r t y minutes, and t h e headaches would s t a r t again, and s o I had s t a r t e d taking t h e c h i l d r e n t h a t time t o t h e A i r Force d o c t o r , you know, o u t a t t h e base, and he thought t h a t we had a mild case of t h e f l u , so he s a i d f o r us t o e a t - j u s t p l a i n t o a s t , and p l a i n soda c r a c k e r s , and t e a , b u t n o t t o t a k e s o l i d food f o r awhile, so t h a t ' s t h e food t h a t we stayed on f o r approximately t e n days, because i t j u s t kept g e t t i n g worse, and f i n a l l y I kept t h i n k i n g , 'Well,' I says, ' t h e odors were smelling s o bad, t h a t I ' v e g o t t o do something,' so I g o t hold of Modern Equipment Company, and I t o l d them t h a t I suspected t h a t t h e r e might be a gas leak, b u t I d o n ' t know f o r s u r e , but something i s c e r t a i n l y making everybody s i c k , and i t j u s t hasn' t gone away, and I didn' t t h i n k by t h a t time t h a t i t was t h e f l u , because t h e r e was no d i a r r h e a o r any of t h e o t h e r symptoms which, you know, a person might have with t h e f l u , s o Modern Equipment came o u t , and, s u r e enough, t h e r e was a gas l e a k , and underneath t h e burner, you know, would be t h e , w e l l , the second burner i n t h i s way t h a t you t u r n on, t h e man discovered i n t h e copper tubing t h a t comes o u t , you know, t o p u t t h e gas i n , you know, t h a t come up t o where you t u r n t h e b u t t o n on, t h e r e was a d e f e c t i v e h o l e underneath t h e r e , and t h a t ' s where t h e gas was escaping from, so he went ahead and c u t t h i s piece o u t , and f i x e d i t . "Q. And then d i d you a l ' l g e t w e l l ? A. Yes s i r , we d i d . "Q. What was t h e next t h i n g , then, t h a t you discovered was wrong with t h e t r a i l e r ? A . Well, i n t h e k i t c h e n a r e a , t h e paneling overhead f e l l down i n t h e kitchen a r e a a l s o , a s well a s t h e paneling i n t h e l i v i n g room. "9. Also the paneling i n the k i t c h e n ? A. Yes. A l l r i g h t , and then a f t e r t h a t , M r s . Harrington, "Q. what happened? A . Well, a f t e r t h a t I s t a r t e d n o t i c i n g t h a t t h e r e were odors i n t h e t r a i l e r , and when I say ' l i k e odors' it was l i k e t h a t maybe t h e r e was, oh, l i k e f o r i n s t a n c e you l e f t a window open, and t h e r e was an outhouse c l o s e by. "Q. Did t h e s e odors bother you? Yes, they d i d . A. "Q. H w bad d i d t h e s e odors g e t ? A . Well, they o g o t t o t h e p o i n t t h a t i f you were t r y i n g t o e a t your d i n n e r , t h e odors i n t h e t r a i l e r i t s e l f , y o u know, i t was c e r t a i n l y q u i t e evident t h a t t h e odors were t h e r e , and w e had a t e r r i b l e problem t r y i n g t o e a t , and I used a g r e a t amount of Lysol and o t h e r s t u f f , you know, t r y i n g t o g e t r i d of t h a t odor, but i t would not go away. Did your c h i l d r e n complain a t a l l about t h e s e "Q. odors i n t h e t r a i l e r ? A. Well, n o t t o t h e p o i n t t h a t they complained about t h e odors i n t h e t r a i l e r so much, b u t they knew t h a t t h e odors, w e l l , m daughter mentioned y t o m t h a t h e r bedroom smelled funny. e And d i d t h e s e odors a f f e c t t h e food t h a t you had "Q. i n t h e t r a i l e r ? A. Yes, they did. "Q. I n what manner? A. Well, f o r i n s t a n c e , I had graham crackers i n t h e r e , and I had R i t z c r a c k e r s , and 1 had cookks, oh, l e t m s e e , those were Oreo cookies, e and I had those up i n t h e c a b i n e t , and I had Rice K r i s p i e s s t o r e d up t h e r e i n t h e c a b i n e t t o o , and when I would go t o feed m daughter t h i s food, oh, l i k e y g i v i n g h e r a bowl of Rice K r i s p i e s b e f o r e she would go t o school. and she kept on saying, 'Ahhh, d o n ' t make m e e a t t h a t s t u f f , ' she s a i d , because she s a i d i t was making h e r s i c k , and I s a i d , 'Well, you've g,ot t o e a t , ' I says, I Because you've g o t t o go t o school,' and she kept on r e f u s i n g t o e a t h e r food. Well, I would make h e r e a t i t , you know, because she had t o have h e r food, and she would throw up. "Q. And who i s ' s h e ? ' A. M daughter, Sharon. y And how o l d was she then? f i v e and a h a l f . "Q. "Q. A. That time about And Sharon would become ill? A. Yes s i r . Now, how much concern d i d you have, Mrs. Harrington, "Q. f o r y o u r s e l f , and your c h i l d r e n , when they g o t so s i c k and so ill, and when you had a l l of t h e s e problems t h a t you have t o l d t h i s j u r y about? A . W e l l , i t made m very e u p s e t , w e l l , n o t only u p s e t , b u t a s w e l l a s ill, due t o t h e f a c t t h a t I having t o have t o take t h e c h i l d r e n t o t h e doctor when I was s i c k . "Q. This would cause you a d d i t i o n a l problems, i s t h a t r i g h t ? A . Yes sir." There is ample evidence in the record that the ~arrington family suffered emotional distress at the hands of Holiday Rambler. Mont This Court in McGuire v. American Honda Co., (1977), . , 566 P.2d 1124, 34 St.Rep. 632, relied on lay testimony of the plaintiff, his wife, and the plaintiff's cousin in determining that there was substantial credible evidence in support of the plaintiff's theory of causation. The testimony of Vicki Harrington, all of which went into evidence without objection, is admisszble to show that a manufacturing defect caused these injuries. Issue 3. Holiday Rambler contends the Court erred in giving plaintiffs' instruction on punitive damages. It character- izes this case as one arising under contract in an attempt to bring the case within the limitations of section 17-208, R.C.M. 1947, which provides: 11 Exemplary damass--in what cases allowed. In any action for a breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, actual or presumed, the jury, in addition to the actual damags may give damages for the sake of example, and by way of punishing the defendant ," (Emphasis added.) It is clear that in ~ontana, and generally, a party may not pursue both an action for recission and damages for deceit or misrepresentation. Fraser v. Clark, (1960), 137 Mont. 362, 376, 352 P.2d 681, On the other hand, an action on the contract - and an action for fraud or misrepresentation in the inducement of the contract are not incompatible. See: Miller v. Fox, (1977), Mont . -3 P.2d , 34 St.Rep. 1367; Paulson v. Kustom Enterprises, Inc., (1971), 157 Mont. 188, 483 P.2d 708; Falls Sand 6 Gravel Co. v. Western Concrete, Inc., (1967), 270 Here, i t was g i p u l a t e d by t h e p a r t i e s t h a t t h e p r e t r i a l order should supersede t h e e a r l i e r pleadings. I n the p r e t r i a l order Harringtons a l l e g e d Holiday should be made t o pay p u n i t i v e damages because of f r a u d , malice and oppression by i t s u n j u s t i f i a b l e , deceptive and d e c e i t f u l conduct i n misrepresenting t h e type and q u a l i t y of i t s t r a i l e r t o people such a s p l a i n t i f f s and t o t h e consumer p u b l i c a t l a r g e . I t i s c l e a r from t h e record and t h e pfeerhl order t h a t Harringtons were bringing t h i s case i n t o r t , s e p a r a t e and d i s t i n c t from any a c t i o n a r i s i n g o u t of c o n t r a c t . This case would f a l l w i t h i n t h e parameter of Miller v. Fox, supra; Paulson v. Kustom E n t e r p r i s e s , I n c . , supra; and F a l l s Sand & Gravel Co. v. Western Concrete, I n c . , supra. Therefore p u n i t i v e damages were properly considered. The c o u r t d i d n o t e r r i n g i v i n g an i n s t r u c t i o n on Issue 4 . implied malice. t h e defendant Section 17-208 a u t h o r i z e s exemplary damages where "* * * has been g u i l t y of oppression, f r a u d , o r malice, a c t u a l o r presumed * * *.'I The i n s t r u c t i o n i n q u e s t i o n advises t h e j u r y t h a t i t i s n o t necessary t o show a c t u a l malice t o recover p u n i t i v e damages. This i n s t r u c t i o n i s a c o r r e c t statement of t h e law. I s s u e 5. Holiday Rambler, a f t e r i n s t r u c t i o n s were s e t t l e d , made a motion f o r a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t on t h e grounds t h e r e was no evidence t o support an award f o r fraud, a c t u a l o r c o n s t r u c t i v e , and no evidence t o support damages f o r s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y i n t o r t under §402A, 2 Restatement of T o r t s 2d. I n reviewing t h e record t h e r e was evidence of both a c t u a l and c o n s t r u c t i v e fraud and t h e c o u r t properly allowed t h e s e i s s u e s t o go t o t h e jury. Evidence f o r recovery under $40294, 2 Restatement of T o r t s 2d, presented f o r j u r y c o n s i d e r a t i o n included numerous d e f e c t s and t h e e f f e c t on t h e family, including: 1. A f l o o r which sagged. 2. A d e f e c t i v e h o t water tank. 3. A d e f e c t i v e s e p t i c tank. 4. A d e f e c t i v e b a t h tub d r a i n . 5. A d e f e c t i v e gas connection t o stove. This Court i n MacDonald v. P r o t e s t a n t Episcopal Church, (1967), 150 Mont. 332, 336, 435 P.2d 369, s t a t e d : "* * * I n r u l i n g on t h e motions f o r d i s m i s s a l and a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t , t h e c o u r t must view t h e e v i dence i n t h e l i g h t most favorable t o t h e p l a i n t i f f and i f a prima f a c i e case i s made o u t t h e motion should n o t be granted * * *." Here, when applying t h e r u l e s t a t e d above, t h e evidence presented was e n t i t l e d t o j u r y c o n s i d e r a t i o n and t h e r e f o r e t h e d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t was properly denied. The judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t Court i s affirmed except f o r t h e d o l l a r amount of t h e damage award. W e s t r i k e t h e sum of $4,691.90 from t h e g e n e r a l damage judgment and a s modified i s affirmed i n t h e amount of $13,000.00. // Justice W e Concur: AG . P e t e r G. M Judge, s i t t i n g J u s t i c e Paul G. & f i e l d . r

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.