Case Title: Reiman Const. Co. v. Jerry Hiller Co.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1985-11-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
Reiman Const. Co. v. Jerry Hiller Co.1985 WY 195709 P.2d 1271Case Number: 85-39, 85-40Decided: 11/25/1985REIMAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, A WYOMING CORPORATION, APPELLANT (DEFENDANT), 

GERALD DEINES & ASSOCIATES; CHEN & ASSOCIATES, INC., A COLORADO CORPORATION; AND VOLK AND HARRISON, P.C., A WYOMING CORPORATION, (DEFENDANTS), 

v. 

JERRY HILLER COMPANY; AND GERALD G. HILLER AND BETTY B. HILLER, D/B/A JERRY HILLER COMPANY, APPELLEES (PLAINTIFFS). 

GERALD DEINES & ASSOCIATES; VOLK AND HARRISON, P.C., A WYOMING CORPORATION, APPELLANTS (DEFENDANTS), 

REIMAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, A WYOMING CORPORATION; CHEN & ASSOCIATES, INC., A COLORADO CORPORATION, (DEFENDANTS), 

v. 

JERRY HILLER COMPANY; AND GERALD G. HILLER AND BETTY B. HILLER, D/B/A JERRY HILLER COMPANY, APPELLEES (PLAINTIFFS).
Supreme Court of Wyoming
REIMAN CONSTRUCTION 
COMPANY, A WYOMING CORPORATION, APPELLANT (DEFENDANT), 

GERALD DEINES & 
ASSOCIATES; CHEN & ASSOCIATES, INC., A COLORADO CORPORATION; AND VOLK AND 
HARRISON, P.C., A WYOMING CORPORATION, (DEFENDANTS), 

v. 

JERRY HILLER COMPANY; AND 
GERALD G. HILLER AND BETTY B. HILLER, D/B/A JERRY HILLER COMPANY, APPELLEES 
(PLAINTIFFS). 

GERALD DEINES & 
ASSOCIATES; VOLK AND HARRISON, P.C., A WYOMING CORPORATION, APPELLANTS 
(DEFENDANTS), 

REIMAN CONSTRUCTION 
COMPANY, A WYOMING CORPORATION; CHEN & ASSOCIATES, 
INC., A COLORADO CORPORATION, (DEFENDANTS), 

v. 

JERRY HILLER COMPANY; AND 
GERALD G. HILLER AND BETTY B. HILLER, D/B/A JERRY HILLER COMPANY, APPELLEES 
(PLAINTIFFS).

 
 
Cameron S. 
Walker of Schwartz, Bon, McCrary & Walker, Casper, for appellant (defendant) Reiman Const. 
Co.

David A. Scott 
of Murane & Bostwick, Casper, for 
appellants (defendants) Gerald Deines & Associates, and Volk & 
Harrison, P.C.

Warren R. Darrow 
and Don W. Riske of Riske, Edmonds & Darrow, P.C., Cheyenne, for appellees (plaintiffs) Jerry Hiller 
Co. and Gerald G. Hiller and Betty B. Hiller, d/b/a Jerry Hiller 
Co.

Before THOMAS, C.J., and 
ROSE, ROONEY, BROWN and CARDINE, JJ.

BROWN, 
Justice.

[¶1.]     This appeal results 
from an action for damages due to the faulty construction of a commercial 
building and warehouse near Casper, Wyoming. The owner of the building, appellee 
Jerry Hiller Company (hereinafter Hiller), filed suit against the soils 
engineering firm of Chen & Associates (hereinafter Chen), the architectural 
firm of appellant Gerald Deines & Associates (hereinafter Deines), the 
engineering firm of appellant Volk & Harrison, P.C. (hereinafter Volk & 
Harrison), and the building contractor, appellant Reiman Construction Company 
(hereinafter Reiman). At the close of Hiller's case, the court dismissed the 
complaint against Chen and rendered judgment in favor of Hiller, finding Deines, 
Volk & Harrison, and Reiman negligent and liable to Hiller for the damage 
caused.

[¶2.]     In Case No. 85-39, 
Reiman appeals from the judgment and raises the following 
issues:

"1. Will the evidence in 
this case support a judgment against Reiman Construction 
Company?

"2. Did the District 
Court err in refusing to specify its method of computing damages, thereby 
preventing an effective review?

"3. Did the District 
Court err in failing to determine specific percentages of 
negligence?

"4. Did the District 
Court err in failing to allocate damages among the 
defendants?"

[¶3.]     In Case No. 85-40, 
appellant Deines and appellant Volk & Harrison together seek review of the 
judgment and raise the following issues:

"A. The Trial Court 
committed reversible error in failing to assess negligence against the 
Appellees.

"B. The Trial Court 
committed reversible error in failing to assess negligence against Defendant 
Chen and Associates.

"C. The Trial Court 
committed reversible error in awarding damages that were 
excessive."

[¶4.]     The appeals were 
consolidated for argument and opinion. We will reverse the trial court's 
judgment finding Reiman negligent in Case No. 85-39. In Case No. 85-40, we will 
affirm the trial court's judgment finding Deines and Volk & Harrison 
negligent. On the issue of damages, we will remand the case to the district 
court.

[¶5.]     In August 1977, Hiller 
entered into a contract with the architectural firm of Deines to design an 
office and warehouse building. Deines subsequently obtained a soils report from 
Chen and enlisted the engineering services of Volk & Harrison to design the 
foundation and floor of the building. When all the construction bids were 
received, Reiman's was the lowest at $604,000, but well above the projected cost 
of $450,000. Therefore, all bids were rejected, and Hiller, at the suggestion of 
Deines, retained an outside consulting engineer to modify the building design 
and thereby reduce the construction cost. After the modification plans were 
completed, Reiman agreed to construct the building, as modified, for the sum of 
$542,551.

[¶6.]     The Chen soils report 
was used by both Deines and Volk & Harrison in the original design as well 
as the subsequent modified design. However, as Reiman points out in its brief, 
the plans did deviate from the soils report in the following 
respects:

"(1) Sheet FF of the 
plans showed that the floor slab was to be tied directly to the foundation, 
without providing for an expansion joint;

"(2) The roof drain on 
the north side of the building discharged directly against the side * * 
*;

"(3) No sloping contour 
lines were shown on the north side of the building * * *."

[¶7.]     Construction on the 
building was substantially completed in December of 1979, and Hiller moved into 
the building. Subsequently, in July of 1981, inspection revealed cracks in the 
building. All witnesses agreed the damage was caused by water infiltrating into 
the foundation, causing the soil to expand.

[¶8.]     In its decision letter, 
the trial court found:

"1. In August of 1977, 
plaintiffs and defendant Deines contracted for Deines to design an office and 
warehouse building for plaintiffs. Deines retained defendant Volk and Harrison 
as structural engineer. In January of 1979, plaintiffs and defendant Reiman 
contracted for construction of the building in accordance with plans and 
specifications prepared by Deines and Volk.

"2. In September of 1977, 
a soils report was submitted by defendant Chen noting that the underlying soil 
possessed a high swell potential. Chen recommended that the building be designed 
to account for this with particular reference to the floor, exterior ground 
slope, and roof drain discharges. This report was submitted to Deines, made 
available to Volk, and included in the specifications for the Reiman 
contract.

"3. The building was not 
designed and constructed to accommodate the findings and recommendations of the 
soils report. The design and construction should have allowed for vertical 
movement of the floor and walls, for roof drains to discharge water a sufficient 
distance from the foundation, and for adequate exterior ground slope to drain 
water away from the building.

"4. Defendants had a duty 
to design and construct the building in accordance with the soils report. The 
breach of this duty was negligence and below standards in the industry. It was 
technically feasible to design and construct the building to allow for the soil 
conditions.

"5. As a result of the 
negligence of defendants, roof drains discharged water too near the foundation 
and the drainage slope north of the building was inadequate. Water thus flowed 
underneath the floor slab, causing the ground to swell. The slab heaved, causing 
cracks in the floor, walls, and ceiling and relating damages throughout the 
office portion of the building.

"6. Cracks appeared in 
the concrete before completion of the building. Plaintiffs occupied the building 
in December of 1979, with the understanding that the defects had been or would 
be corrected by Deines and Reiman.

"7. There was no 
negligence by Chen or plaintiffs or, if they were negligent, it was not a 
proximate cause of the damages.

"8. There is not such a 
disproportion of fault among the defendants as to render inequitable an equal 
distribution among them of their common liability. The injuries sustained by 
plaintiffs are incapable of any logical, reasonable or practical division. The 
conduct of defendants each constitutes a legal cause of the injuries. Thus, the 
defendants are jointly and severally liable.

"9. As a proximate cause 
of the negligence of defendants, plaintiffs were injured in the amount of 
$167,200.00, the reasonable cost of repairs determined from comparing the damage 
estimates received in evidence."

CASE NO. 
85-39

[¶9.]     As noted earlier, 
appellant Reiman raises the issue of whether there was sufficient evidence to 
support a finding of negligence against Reiman. Since we find insufficient 
evidence to find Reiman negligent, we need not address the other issues raised 
by Reiman.

[¶10.]  As stated above, Reiman constructed the 
building from the plans and specifications provided by Deines. On January 14, 
1980, Reiman was given a certificate of substantial completion which stated, 
"The Work performed under this Contract has been reviewed and found to be 
substantially complete." Under § 9.9.1 of the "General Conditions of the 
Contract for Construction," published by the American Institute of Architects, 
an architect issues a final certificate of payment after inspecting the 
construction:

"9.9.1 Upon receipt of 
written notice that the Work is ready for final inspection and acceptance and 
upon receipt of a final Application for Payment, the Architect will promptly 
make such inspection and, when he finds the Work acceptable under the Contract 
Documents and the Contract fully performed, he will promptly issue a final 
Certificate for Payment stating that to the best of his knowledge, information 
and belief, and on the basis of his observations and inspections, the Work has 
been completed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Contract 
Documents and that the entire balance found to be due the Contractor, and noted 
in said final Certificate is due and payable. * * *"

[¶11.]  It is generally recognized that a 
contractor who follows the building plans and specifications is not liable for 
the resultant defects in a building due to a faulty 
design.

"* * * In the absence of 
special provisions in the contract, the contractor's obligation is ended upon 
the completion of the structure in accordance with the terms of the contract. 
Therefore, he is not liable in case the structure is subsequently damaged or is 
destroyed by some accident or calamity, or falls from some defect or weakness in 
the structure or fault of the soil, inasmuch as he does not guarantee the 
sufficiency of the specification, but only the skill with which he performs his 
work and the soundness of the materials used therein.

* * * * * 
*

"* * * [T]he rule has 
become well settled in practically every American jurisdiction in which the 
matter has been involved, that a construction contractor who has followed plans 
or specifications furnished by the owner, and the architect or engineer, and 
which have proved to be defective or insufficient, will not be responsible to 
the owner for loss or damage which results, at least after the work is 
completed, solely from the defective or insufficient plans or specifications, in 
the absence of any negligence on the contractor's part, or any express warranty 
by him as to their being sufficient or free from defects. * * *" 13 Am.Jur.2d 
Building and Construction Contracts, §§ 27, 28, pp. 29-30 
(1964).

[¶12.]  Hiller claims Reiman was negligent by 
failing to notify Hiller of the soils condition encountered. Such argument is 
faulty since Hiller's architect, Deines, as well as the engineering firm of Volk 
& Harrison, had already been apprised of the soils condition from Chen's 
soils report and had made their plans and specifications accordingly. Therefore, 
there was no need to inform Deines and Volk & Harrison of the soils 
condition when they already knew such from the soils 
report.

[¶13.]  In this case, there is no evidence which 
shows Reiman did anything but perform all work properly under the design given 
for the building. Carrel McClain, architect for the Deines firm, testified the 
building was constructed in accordance with the plans and specifications. To the 
same effect is the testimony of Michael Apostolos, designer for Deines, who also 
concluded the building was completed in accordance with the specified 
design.

[¶14.]  In the case of Gaybis v. Palm, 201 Md. 78, 92 A.2d 269 
(1952), the court held the contractor of a home which was subsequently damaged 
after construction due to faulty soil could recover for the cost of construction 
from the owner. The contractor built the home according to the owner's plans and 
specifications and was absolved of any liability:

"* * * If a building 
contractor does his work in accordance with the plans and specifications and 
without negligence, he will not be liable to the owner where the building is 
subsequently damaged by reason of some defect in the building or some fault of 
the soil, in the absence of an express warranty that the plans and 
specifications are sufficient, inasmuch as he does not warrant their sufficiency 
but only the skill and care with which he performs his work and the soundness of 
the materials used therein." Id., 93 A.2d  at 272.

[¶15.]  In Ridley Investment Company v. Croll, 
Del.Super., 192 A.2d 925, 6 A.L.R.3d 1389 (1963), an owner sought recovery 
from a contractor for damages to a post office building due to substantial 
settling after installation of the floor. The contractor notified the owner of 
the soft soil conditions. An outside expert was called in who recommended 
additional piling be placed beneath the exterior walls. The owner concurred and 
the contractor followed the expert's recommendations. Shortly thereafter, the 
expert again recommended that additional piling was needed, but the owner 
disagreed and no further piling was added. After installation of the floor, 
substantial settling occurred in the foundation of the building. Additional 
expense was required to remedy the settling, and the owner sought to recover 
this expense from the contractor. The court found the contractor not liable for 
damages to the building due to defective design:

"The lower court held 
that defendant was exonerated from liability because the damages resulted from a 
defect in the plans and specifications prepared by the owner and which were 
followed by defendant in a workmanlike manner. Plaintiff contends here that the 
court below failed to distinguish between defects inherent in the plans and 
specifications and defects extrinsic to such specifications, such as a latent 
defect in the soil. This argument is untenable, since plans and specifications 
do not exist in a vacuum; they are made for a particular building at a 
particular place. The defect in the plans and specifications for the building in 
question was the failure to make provision for adequate pilings and other 
support for the floor; the fact that these plans and specifications might 
provide for an adequate building in some other place does not render the plans 
and specifications less defective for the location in question." Id., at 926-927.

See also the 
annotation at 6 A.L.R.3d 1394 (1966), and the cases cited 
therein.

[¶16.]  We are in accord with the principles 
cited above. A contractor who constructs a building in substantial compliance 
with the plans and specifications in a workmanlike manner is not liable for 
damage caused due to defects in such plans. In this case, we find there was 
insufficient evidence upon which to find Reiman negligent for failing to follow 
the design plans. Therefore, the judgment rendered against Reiman is 
reversed.

CASE NO. 
85-40

[¶17.]  As set forth above, appellant Deines and 
appellant Volk & Harrison ask whether the trial court erred in failing to 
assess any negligence against Hiller as well as Chen. We will consider these 
issues together. Appellants do not claim the court erred in rendering judgment 
against them. Appellants also raise the issue of damages, which we will consider 
later in this opinion.

[¶18.]  As noted earlier, Chen's role in the 
transaction was to prepare a soils report for Deines. The soils report stated: 
"Subsoil conditions across the site were erratic." We think there was sufficient 
evidence presented at trial for the court to find no negligence attributable to 
Chen. There was expert testimony presented which indicated the soils report was 
correct and adequately apprised appellants of the soil 
conditions.

[¶19.]  Chen had no duty to specify exactly how 
adjustment to the erratic soil conditions should be correlated; that was the job 
of the architect and structural engineer. The evidence showed the technical data 
presented in Chen's soils report would enable adequate design of the 
building.

[¶20.]  The court dismissed Hiller's complaint 
against Chen and granted judgment in its favor. Therefore, the court committed 
no error by failing to assess any negligence against Chen. See, e.g., ABC Builders, Inc. v. Phillips, 
Wyo., 632 P.2d 925 (1981).

[¶21.]  The same holds true for Hiller. 
Appellants claim Hiller was negligent by failing to mitigate the damages. We 
recognize the well-established principle that one who is injured by the wrongful 
act of another has a duty to exercise reasonable care and diligence to avoid or 
minimize the damage caused. Anderson v. Bauer, Wyo., 681 P.2d 1316 (1984); and Shidler v. Clayton Oil 
Company, Wyo., 502 P.2d 987 (1972). However, before 
mitigation is allowed, there must be a showing of "a reasonable estimate of how 
much the damages could have been lessened." Banner v. Town of Dayton, Wyo., 
474 P.2d 300, 308 (1970).

[¶22.]  Appellants assert that Hiller was 
negligent by failing to take proper steps to minimize the damages caused. 
However, evidence presented at trial showed that Hiller contacted the appellants 
numerous times concerning problems with the building and improper drainage 
around the building.

[¶23.]  Appellants also allege that Hiller was 
negligent in its failure to follow the soils report recommendations when the 
landscaping was done. It should be noted that the landscaper was not made a 
party to the action so it is difficult at best to find Hiller liable for the 
landscaper's alleged negligence, if any. Gerald Hiller testified that the soils 
report recommendations regarding landscaping were never discussed with him so he 
was not aware of them. We find the trial court was correct in concluding there 
was no showing of any negligence attributable to Hiller.

[¶24.]  Accordingly, we affirm the judgment with 
respect to appellant Deines and appellant Volk & 
Harrison.

DAMAGES

[¶25.]  The appellants in both appeals have 
raised the issue of damages. After receiving damage estimates ranging from 
$95,000 to $527,000, the court awarded Hiller damages in the amount of $167,200. 
In its decision letter, quoted above, the court found this amount "the 
reasonable cost of repairs determined from comparing the damage estimates 
received in evidence." Subsequent thereto, appellant Reiman filed a motion 
seeking itemization of the damage computation determined by the court. Such 
motion was denied, the court stating in its decision 
letter:

"* * * The Court selected 
from those estimates the repair costs which appeared to be the most reasonable 
and having the greatest support in the evidence. It would not be possible for me 
to go back and reconstruct that process now."

[¶26.]  It is the rule in this state that damages 
must be susceptible of ascertainment with a reasonable degree of certainty. Cates v. Barb, Wyo., 650 P.2d 1159 (1982); and Wheatland Irrigation 
District v. McGuire, Wyo., 
562 P.2d 287 (1977). In Douglas Reservoirs Water Users Association v. 
Cross, Wyo., 569 P.2d 1280, 1284 (1977), we 
said:

"* * * [W]hile damages 
may not be calculable with absolute certainty, they should be susceptible of 
ascertainment with a reasonable degree of certainty and if there is evidence 
from which a reasonable estimate of money damages may be made that is 
sufficient, the primary objective being to determine the amount of loss, 
applying whatever rule is best suited to that purpose. * * 
*"

However, a court 
may not speculate or conjecture in awarding damages. Krist v. Aetna Casualty&Surety, Wyo., 667 P.2d 665 (1983); and Chrysler Corporation 
v. Todorovich, Wyo., 
580 P.2d 1123 (1978).

[¶27.]  Before any evidence was received in the 
present case, counsel for Deines, and Volk & Harrison filed a request that 
the court make findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Rule 52, 
Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure, which contemplates special findings of fact 
and conclusions of law.1 Pursuant to such request, the 
district court should have set forth its method of computation used in 
determining damages, given the facts and circumstances attendant upon this case. 
As appellant Reiman points out, Hiller may be getting a superior building with 
features not in the original building resulting in unjust enrichment, but it is 
impossible to make such a determination since the court's method of determining 
the damages is not before us. In the absence of such blueprint, even minimal 
attempts of elucubration are all for naught.

[¶28.]  The United States Supreme Court stated in 
Hatahley v. United States, 351 U.S 
173, 182, 76 S. Ct. 745, 752, 100 L. Ed. 1065, 1074 (1956), "[I]t is necessary in 
any case that the findings of damages be made with sufficient particularity so 
that they may be reviewed." Without such information, a defendant is unable to 
properly exercise his appellate rights conferred by statute and the court is 
equally unable to conduct proper appellate review. Fuchstadt v. United 
States, 434 F.2d 367 (2nd Cir. 1970). See 
also Rapisardi v. United Fruit 
Company, 441 F.2d 1308 (2nd Cir. 1971); and Neill v. Diamond M. Drilling Co., 426 F.2d 487 (5th Cir. 1970). Accordingly, the case is remanded to the district 
court for a rehearing on the issue of damages.

[¶29.]  The district court's judgment finding 
Reiman negligent is reversed; the judgment finding Deines as well as Volk & 
Harrison negligent is affirmed; and the case is remanded to the district court 
for a rehearing on the issue of damages.

1 Rule 52, W.R.C.P., reads 
in part:

"(a) Upon the trial of 
questions of fact by the court, or with an advisory jury, it shall not be 
necessary for the court to state its findings, except generally for the 
plaintiff or defendant, unless one of the parties requests it before the 
introduction of any evidence, with the view of exception to the decision of the 
court upon the questions of law involved in the trial, in which case the court 
shall state in writing its special findings of fact separately from its 
conclusions of law; provided, that without such request the court may make such 
special findings of fact and conclusions of law as it deems proper and if the 
same are preserved in the record either by stenographic report or by the court's 
written memorandum, the same may be considered on appeal. Request for findings 
are not necessary for purposes of review. The findings of a master, to the 
extent that the court adopts them, shall be considered as the findings of the 
court."

ROONEY, Justice, 
concurring.

[¶30.]  I agree with that said in the majority 
opinion. The result is affirmance of the finding by the trial court of "no 
negligence by Chen or plaintiffs or, if they were negligent, it was not a 
proximate cause of the damages," and a determination that negligence was not 
established on the part of Reiman. Liability is left with Deines and with Volk 
& Harrison.

[¶31.]  Reiman need no longer be concerned, but 
one of the issues it presented on appeal in Case No. 85-39 was whether or not 
the court erred in failing to determine specific percentages of negligence. I 
believe this should have been done, and that it should be done on remand insofar 
as Deines on the one hand and Volk & Harrison on the other hand are 
concerned.

[¶32.]  In my dissenting opinion in Kirby Building Systems v. Mineral 
Explorations Company, Wyo., 704 P.2d 1266 (1985), I pointed out the 
inconsistency and inequity resulting from the Comparative Negligence Statute, § 
1-1-109, W.S. 1977, and the Contribution Among Joint Tortfeasors Act, §§ 1-1-110 
through 1-1-113, W.S. 1977. Aside from that, the contribution among joint 
tortfeasors is according to their relative degrees of fault. In this case, after 
Hiller recovers damages from Deines or from Volk & Harrison, or from both, 
the two tortfeasors will have a problem with contribution unless the trial court 
determines their specific degrees of negligence. I would direct the trial court 
to do so.