Case Title: Harper v. Hudson

Citation: 418 So. 2d 54

Docket Number: 

State: mississippi

Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Date: 1982-07-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
418 So. 2d 54 (1982) R.B. HARPER, d/b/a Harper House Movers v. Howard HUDSON. No. 53283. Supreme Court of Mississippi. July 21, 1982. *55 Rex Gordon, Sr., Gordon, Myers & Gordon, Pascagoula, for appellant. A. Vincent Blackwell, Pascagoula, for appellee. Before WALKER, BROOM and ROY NOBLE LEE, JJ. BROOM, Justice, for the Court: Storm damage (Hurricane Fredric) to the house of plaintiff Howard Hudson (appellee) occurring during the time contractor R.B. Harper, d/b/a Harper House Movers (appellant) was attempting to move it for Hudson, forms background to this case appealed from the Circuit Court of Jackson County, the Honorable Clinton E. Lockard, Circuit Judge, presiding. Hudson, the owner, sued contractor Harper for damages to the house admittedly resulting from the storm. The jury found "for the Plaintiff, Howard Hudson in the amount of $10,500.00 and for the Defendant R.B. Harper in the amount of $1,500.00 for labor and materials." We reverse. Harper appeals, contending that (1) the damages complained of were due to an act of God for which Harper cannot be legally liable, (2) erroneous jury instructions were given, and (3) the lower court erred in allowing into evidence an advertisement which Harper had bought in the local telephone directory. Hudson's declaration alleged that the parties had orally contracted to the effect that Harper would move a house which Hudson had purchased. Moving operations began on August 9, but he charged that Harper Movement of the house was to be a distance of about a mile and a concrete slab was poured for the new location on August 17, 1979. Contractor Harper, the defendant, moved the den on September 11, but then bogged down when moving the garage and had to use a winch to get to the site. The two-story section of the house was loaded upon the trailer and fastened to steel beams. At that stage, Hurricane Fredric was posing a threat and, in order to protect the house situated on the trailer, the trailer was lowered and, according to Harper, he took every precaution and did everything reasonable to protect the house. Hudson takes the position that Harper did not properly brace the house so as to be prepared for the storm, which caused great damage to the upper two-story section of the house. Hudson offered testimony that the contract price for the house was $10,500.00. SHOULD CONTRACTOR HARPER BE EXONERATED ON THE BASIS THAT THE DAMAGES WERE AN ACT OF GOD FOR WHICH HE CANNOT BE LEGALLY LIABLE? Harper contends that he "cannot be held to the degree of foreseeability as to reasonably know a hurricane of tornadic winds would strike the Mississippi Gulf Coast. To hold otherwise is to make the Appellant responsible for a mere possibility for the occurrence of an event that is not foreseeable." We think a jury issue was made as to whether Harper took the proper measures to protect the house from damage from the impending storm. There was at least some substantial testimony which would support the theory of Hudson's case that Harper was negligent in taking inadequate *56 means to secure the house after placing it on the trailer, which, if believed, could be a proper basis of liability. Plaintiff Hudson testified, as follows, about his conversation with Harper: Dennis Clark testified that the house was jacked up about three weeks "on the trailer" and that he observed the house just prior to the hurricane and went to it with others to see if it was tied down. The following is excerpted from his testimony: We think this testimony and the other testimony was sufficient to raise a jury issue on liability based on negligence. This case is distinguishable from Harry Dole Dodge of Pascagoula, Inc. v. Cox, 246 So. 2d 918 (Miss. 1971) and other cases cited, in that here there is substantial evidence showing that after Harper removed the house from its moorings and onto a trailer, he failed to use proper means to tie it down or protect it from the hurricane. The next argument is that the lower court erred in granting instructions P-6a, P-7, and P-8. The argument is that the instructions do not set forth specific facts of negligence and are without sufficient evidentiary support in the evidence to make them appropriate upon the facts. He says further that the instructions are "vague and general instructions on negligence that do not furnish any guide whatever to the jury and they are at most abstract statements of the law." We do not view the language of the instructions as so faulty to warrant reversal, but P-8 on the measure of damages is not *57 supported by proper proof of the before and after value, as pointed out later in this opinion. We think the evidence was insufficient on the element of damages and for that reason, if no other, reversal would be required. As argued by Harper, Hudson did not introduce any knowledgeable or qualified person to testify as to the before and after value of the house. Of course, it is the burden of the plaintiff in a case of this sort to prove his damages by a preponderance of the evidence. The general rule is that if there is any remaining value to the damaged property (and there is no evidence to the contrary here), then the measure of damages is the difference in the value immediately before the casualty or loss and the value immediately after the damage or injury to the property. Stigall v. Sharkey County, 213 Miss. 798, 58 So. 2d 5 (1952). Of course, if the property is totally destroyed and rendered absolutely valueless in the accident or casualty, the damages would be the value of the property at the time of such destruction. Federal Compress & Warehouse Co. v. Reed, 339 So. 2d 547 (Miss. 1976). The only testimony about the measure of damages of the value of the property in question was given during the testimony of Theron E. Spooner, who testified that he sold the house in question to the plaintiff Hudson. After preliminary questions to witness Spooner about how his sale came about, he gave further testimony as follows: Although we think the purchase price might have some relevancy, it was incumbent upon plaintiff Hudson to give more enlightening testimony about the measure of his damages, since no other testimony was offered on the issue of damages. DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN ADMITTING THE TELEPHONE DIRECTORY ADVERTISEMENT OF HARPER INTO EVIDENCE OVER OBJECTION? The advertising consisted of a written ad which is common to telephone directories: Contained in the ad are the words "Licensed & Conditional Guarantee", and the appellant argues that such language in the ad could have no probative value and could not help but "inflame the jury against" contractor Harper. We agree that the language *58 "Conditional Guarantee" may be construed as suggestive of insurance, and very likely would convey to the jurors the impression that Harper was an insuror of any damages that might occur during the process of moving the property, regardless of negligence on his part. Appellee Hudson contends that "the advertisement was placed into evidence without objection and Appellant waived any such objection if in fact he had one." As noted in the reply brief of contractor Harper, his counsel made objections which the court overruled but made slight modification in the advertisement before allowing its introduction into evidence. Error in placing the ad into evidence is heightened and aggravated here because the evidence of liability is close. Careful study of the record indicates that owner Hudson failed to introduce proper testimony as to the measure of his damages. Furthermore, introduction of the telephone directory ad was clearly erroneous. These two errors together with the closeness of the liability issue are sufficient to warrant reversal. REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR RETRIAL OF ALL ISSUES. PATTERSON, C.J., SUGG and WALKER, P. JJ., and ROY NOBLE LEE, BOWLING and HAWKINS, JJ., concur. DAN M. LEE, J., dissents. PRATHER, J., takes no part.