Title: Leonard Motor Company, Inc. v. Roberts Corporation

State: new-mexico

Issuer: New Mexico Supreme Court

Document:

512 P.2d 80 (1973) 85 N.M. 320 LEONARD MOTOR COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. The ROBERTS CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant. No. 9582. Supreme Court of New Mexico. July 13, 1973. James R. Toulouse & Associates, Phil Krehbiel, Albuquerque, for defendant-appellant. Kool, Kool, Bloomfield, Eaves & Mayfield, Roland B. Kool, Malcolm L. Shannon, Jr., Albuquerque, for plaintiff-appellee. MONTOYA, Justice. Leonard Motor Company, Inc. (appellee) filed suit against The Roberts Corporation (appellant) for alleged breach of contract *81 when appellant returned to appellee a leased cement mixer containing hardened cement. Appellant counterclaimed, alleging that the mixer was inoperable and that, as a result, appellant's construction project was delayed, whereby appellant was damaged. A jury trial followed. After the presentation of evidence appellee moved for a directed verdict, which the court denied. Subsequently, the jury returned a verdict in favor of appellant on its counterclaim in the amount of $5,000. Appellee moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which motion the court granted, holding that there was no substantial evidence to support the $5,000 award. This appeal followed. The substance of the evidence in the record is to the effect that a seven-yard capacity cement mixer was rented in Albuquerque from appellee on August 31, 1970, and driven to Santa Fe where the truck carrying the mixer broke down. On September 2d the cement truck had to be pushed up the hill to the jobsite near Tierra Amarilla. Later that same day, appellant's employees attempted to use the cement mixer. The mixer would not rotate so appellant's employees manually dumped the already hardening concrete onto the side of a road. This material was wasted. On September 3d, only four and one-half yards of cement were placed in the mixer with the idea that a reduced weight would be easier to mix. The mixer once again failed to rotate and the cement hardened in the cement drum, despite the efforts of appellant's employees. Joe Roberts, president of The Roberts Corporation, appellant herein, testified that appellant was delayed three days in finishing the project because of the failure of the mixer to perform properly. There were 20 men on the crew and they were then engaged in building storm drainage manholes on the side of the proposed roadway. Roberts further testified that the storm drainage manholes needed to be completed before work on the road could be finished, and that they could not go forward any further in their particular area until the manholes were finished. Mr. Roberts also testified that the expense of the three lost days was about $1800 per day and that the value of the wasted cement was $220. In setting aside the jury verdict on damages, the trial judge stated: The question we must resolve is whether the trial court was correct in granting judgment notwithstanding the verdict in view of the reasons assigned by the trial court and the evidence appearing in the record. In Townsend v. United States Rubber Company, 74 N.M. 206, 209, 392 P.2d 404, 406 (1964), in reviewing and applying the correct test in determining whether judgment notwithstanding the verdict is proper, we stated as follows: In Chavira v. Carnahan, 77 N.M. 467, 469, 423 P.2d 988, 990 (1967), the court cited Townsend, supra, approvingly, and added: In Francis v. Johnson, 81 N.M. 648, 650, 471 P.2d 682, 684 (Ct.App. 1970), the court compared a motion for directed verdict with a motion for judgment notwithstanding a verdict, stating: Furthermore, This court, in Simon v. Akin, 79 N.M. 689, 690, 448 P.2d 795, 796 (1968), added to the statements in Francis, supra, stating: Moreover, the testimony by Mr. Roberts is uncontradicted. In Medler v. Henry, 44 N.M. 275, 283-284, 101 P.2d 398, 403 (1940), we stated as follows with respect to uncontradicted testimony: Examining the record, and particularly the testimony of Mr. Roberts in the light of the above rule, we believe that no facts or circumstances appear in the record which impair the accuracy of such uncontradicted testimony. In fact, appellee made no attempt to cross-examine Mr. Roberts concerning his testimony on damages. *83 In view of the evidence presented, and the inferences properly deducible therefrom and applying the law as stated above, we hold that the trial court erred in setting aside the jury verdict as not being supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the action of the trial court in granting judgment notwithstanding the verdict is reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court to vacate its judgment notwithstanding the verdict and reinstate its judgment in accordance with the jury verdict returned in this cause. It is so ordered. McMANUS, C.J., and MARTINEZ, J., concur.