FILED

June 5, 1997

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate Court Clerk

I N THE COURT OF APPEALS

RI CHARD GAUSE d/ b/ a ROOFWORKS ) SEVI ER CHANCERY

OF TENNESSEE, ) C. A. NO. 03A01- 9707- CH- 00001

 )

 Pl a i ntif f - Appe lla nt )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

v s . ) HON. CHESTER R. RAI NWATER, J R.

 ) CHANCELLOR

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

J ANI CE COLE d/ b/ a RI VERSI DE ) AFFI RMED I N PART, VACATED I N 

SHOP a nd J ERRY OGLE, ) PART, AND REMANDED.

 )

 De f e nda nt s - Appe l l ees )

ROBERT L. OGLE, J R. , Se vi e r ville f or Appe lla nt .

J EFF D. RADER, Ogl e , Wynn & Ra de r , Se vi e r ville , for Appe lle e s .

O P I N I O N

Mc Mu r r a y , J .

Thi s c a s e or i g i n a t e d a s a n a c t i on t o e n f o r c e a l i e n f o r wo r k a n d

ma t e r i a l s pur s u a n t t o T. C. A. § 66- 11- 126. The pl a i nt i f f al l e ge d t ha t

h e ha d f u r n i s h e d e qui p me n t , l a bor a nd ma t e r i a l s wh i c h we r e us e d f o r

i mp r ove me n t s on t h e pr ope r t y wh i c h t h e de f e nda n t , Co l e oc c upi e d a s

l e s s e e a nd t h e de f e n da n t , Ogl e , wa s an owne r . The de f e nda nt , Ogl e ,
1The plaintiff also filed a motion for summary judgment in which he sought to

have the counterclaim dismissed because the property for which counter-plaintiff claimed

damages was owned by a third party who is not a party to this action. The summary

judgment was by agreement submitted to the Special Master for disposition along with

all other matters. The matter was resolved adverse to the plaintiff. The chancellor

later confirmed the findings of the master overruling the motion for summary judgment.

2

f ile d a n a n s we r , ge n e r a l l y s t a t e d t h a t he own e d a n i n t e r e s t i n t h e

s ubj ect pr ope r t y but wa s wi t hout s u f f i c i e n t knowl e dge or i n f o r ma t i o n

t o f or m a be l i e f as t o t he t r u t h of t h e a l l e g a t i ons s e t f o r t h i n t h e

c o mp l a i n t .

On t he ot he r ha nd, de f e nda nt , Col e , f i l e d an ans we r and count e r -

c l a i m. I n he r ans we r Co l e a d mi t t e d t o ha vi ng a l eas e hol d i nt e r e s t i n

t he pr ope r t y. She f ur t he r a d mi t t e d t ha t s he ha d ent e r e d i nt o an

a g r e e me n t wi t h t he pl a i nt i f f t o pr ovi de cer t a i n l a bor and ma t e r i a l s t o

r e pa i r t h e r o o f of t he bui l di ng whi c h s he wa s l e s s ee and whi c h wa s

occupi e d by a subl e s s ee. Th e s ubl e s s e e oper a t e d a bus i n e s s on t h e

p r e mi s e s known a s Ri v e r s i d e Gi f t Shop.

I n he r count e r c l a i m, t h e d e f e nda n t , Co l e , a l l e g e d t h a t t h e

pl a i nt i f f br e a c h e d t h e i r a g r e e me n t a nd f a i l e d t o pe r f o r m t h e l a bor i n

a good wor kma nl i ke ma nne r a nd t h a t a s a r e s u l t t h e i n t e r i o r a n d

c ont e n t s of t he bui l di ng we r e da ma ge d and s he wa s r e qui r e d t o pay f o r

da ma ge s s u s t a i n e d by her t e n a n t . Sh e s ought da ma g e s f r o m t h e pl a i n t i f f

i n the a mount of $12, 000. 00. By a me ndme n t s h e i n c r e a s e d her de ma nd f o r

d a ma g e s by $4, 000. 00.

Subs e que n t l y , the case wa s r e f e r r e d t o a speci a l ma s t e r .

1

 The

s peci a l ma s t e r f ound t h a t t h e pl a i n t i f f ha d br e a c h e d hi s c ont r a c t b y

f a i l ur e to f i ni s h the wo r k a nd by negl i g e n t l y doi ng t h e wo r k and as a
3

r e s ul t t h e r e wa s e x t e n s i v e da ma g e t o t h e bui l d i ng and i t s c ont e n t s .

He f ound t ha t t he pl a i nt i f f wa s not ent i t l e d to a j udgme n t a n d

r ecomme nde d di s mi s s a l of the c o mp l a i n t . On t h e c ount e r c l a i m he f ound

t ha t t he count e r - pl a i nt i f f ha d s us t a i ne d t he al l e ga t i ons o f he r

c ount e r c l a i m a n d wa s en t i t l e d t o dama g e s i n t h e t o t a l a mount of

$10, 657. 21. The s peci a l ma s t e r f ound t h a t t h e da ma g e s f o r r e p a i n t i n g

a nd r e c a r p e t i ng t o t a l e d $4, 417. 75.

Ex c e p t i ons we r e f i l e d t o t h e ma s t e r ' s r e por t . The cha ncel l or at

t he hear i ng on t he e x cep t i ons r e duc e d t h e da ma g e s f o r r e p a i n t i ng and

r e c a r p e t i n g t o $883. 55. He ent e r e d a t ot a l j udgme nt f or t he count e r -

pl a i nt i f f i n t h e a mount of $7, 123. 0 1. The r e ma i nde r of t he s peci a l

ma s t e r ' s r e por t wa s conf i r me d.

Fr o m t h i s j udgme n t , t h e or i g i n a l pl a i n t i f f ha s a ppe a l e d pr e s e n t -

i ng us wi t h t he f ol l owi ng i s s ue s f or r e vi e w:

1 . Whe t he r t h e c our t e r r e d i n a d mi t t i ng evi d e n c e i n t h e

r e c o r d of wi t n e s s e s ( not t h e own e r s ) r e l a t i v e t o t h e

v a l u e of t h e me r c h a ndi s e a nd dama g e s t h e r e t o .

2 . Whe t he r t h e c our t e r r e d i n not r e s t r i c ting the a mount

o f da ma g e s i n a c c o r d a n c e wi t h t h e pr oof of l o s s .

3 . Whe t he r t he cour t er r e d i n f i ndi ng t ha t t he r oof wa s

de f ect i ve l y a ppl i e d a nd i n det e r mi n i ng dama g e s f o r

b r e a c h of wa r r a n t y .

4 . Whe t he r the c our t e r r e d i n a wa r d i ng dama g e s f o r

me r c h a ndi s e whe n t he appe l l ee wa s not t h e own e r of t h e

me r c h a ndi s e a nd had no c a u s e of a c t i on t h e r e f o r .

5 . Whe t he r t h e c our t e r r e d i n f i ndi ng appe l l a n t l i a b l e

f or da ma g e t o t h e i n t e r i o r of t h e buildi ng i n c l udi n g

c a r p e t i ng, whi c h wa s t he obl i ga t i on unde r the subl e a s e

a g r e e me n t of t he s ubl e s s ee, La r r y Ut t a m, not a pa r t y

t o thi s litiga tion.
4

We will f i r s t look to our s t a nda r d of r e vi e w. Ou r s t a nda r d of

r e vi e w i n nonj ur y cas e s i s con t r o l l e d by Rul e 13( d) , Te nne s s ee Rul e s

o f Appe l l a t e Pr o c e dur e i . e . , "[ u] nl e s s ot he r wi s e r e qui r e d by s t a t ut e ,

r e vi e w of f i ndi ngs of f act by t he t r i a l cour t i n ci vi l act i ons s ha l l

b e de novo upon t he r ecor d of t he t r i a l c our t , a c c o mp a n i e d by a

p r e s u mp t i o n of t he cor r ect ne s s of t he f i ndi ng, unl e s s t he pr e ponde r a nc e

o f t he evi de nce i s ot he r wi s e . " To t he ext e nt , howe ve r , t ha t t he r e i s

a c onc u r r e n t f i ndi ng of f a c t by t h e s p e c i a l ma s t e r a nd cha n c e l l o r , we

mus t b e gui d e d by T. C. A. § 27- 1- 113 and t he cases cons t r ui ng t ha t

s t a t u t o r y e n a c t me n t .

T. C. A. § 27- 1- 113 pr ovi de s t he pr ope r s t a nda r d f o r

t hi s Cour t t o f ol l ow whe n r e vi e wi ng t he f i ndi ngs of a ma s t e r

i n whi c h a c h a n cel l o r c onc u r s : " Wh e r e t h e r e ha s be e n a

c onc u r r e n t f i ndi ng of t he ma s t e r and cha ncel l or , whi c h unde r

t he pr i n c i p l e s now obt a i n i ng i s b i ndi ng on t he appe l l a t e

c our t s , t h e Cour t of Ap pe a l s sh a l l not ha v e t h e r i ght t o

di s t ur b s u c h f i ndi ng. " Th e c onc u r r e nt f i ndi ng of a ma s t e r

a n d a cha nc e l l o r ha s t h e s a me f o r c e a nd ef f e c t a s a j u r y

ve r di c t a ppr ove d by t h e tr i a l j udge . Co a t e s v. Thomp s o n, 713

S. W. 2d 83 ( Te nn. App. 1986) , c i t i ng Sc hoe n v. J . C. Br a d f o r d

& Co. , 642 S. W. 2d 420 ( Te nn. App. 1982) ; Fe r r e l l v. El r od,

6 3 Te nn. App. 129, 469 S. W. 2d 678 ( 1971) . Suc h a conc ur r e nc e

i s conc l us i ve on appeal unl e s s ( 1) t he i s s u e i s one not

pr ope r f or r e f e r e nce t o a ma s t e r , ( 2) t he conc ur r e nce i s

ba s e d on an er r or of l a w or a mi x e d q u e s t i on of l a w a n d

f act , or ( 3 ) t h e c onc u r r e n c e i s not s uppor t e d by any

ma t e r i a l evi de nce. Coa t e s , s upr a . Se e a l s o, St a ggs v. He r f f

Mo t o r Co. , 216 Te nn. 113, 390 S. W. 2d 245 ( 1965) . Thus , we

mus t af f i r m t he Cha ncel l or unl e s s one of t he s e t hr e e

e xcept i ons appl i e s i n t hi s cas e .

Ha yne s v. Wils on, ( Te nn. App. Op i n i on f i l e d a t Knoxvi l l e , De c e mb e r 28,

1994. )

Unde r the f a c t s i n t hi s cas e , we f i nd t ha t t he i s s ue s pr e s e nt e d

do not c o me wi t hi n any of t he t hr ee except i ons not e d above and we r e

pr ope r i ssue s t o r e f e r t o a Sp e c i a l Ma s t e r . Th e r e f o r e , t h e c onc u r r e n t
2There is no mention of "concurrent findings" in Rule 13(d), Tennessee Rules of

Appellate Procedure. The rule does, however, contain a limiting provision, i.e.,

"[u]nless otherwise required by statute." Concurrent findings are controlled by T.C.A.

§ 27-1-113. We also note that the Advisory Commission Comments, which specifically

refer to T.C.A. § 27-1-113, state that "[t]his subdivision dealing with appellate review

of findings of fact in civil actions, incorporates existing law."

5

f i ndi ngs of t h e Sp e c i a l Ma s t e r a nd cha n c e l l o r a r e s ubj e c t t o t h e

" ma t e r i a l evi de nce r ul e . "

2

 Our r e vi e w of t he r ecor d r e f l ect s t ha t

t he r e i s ma t e r i a l evi de nc e t o s uppor t t h e conc ur r e nt f i ndi ngs of f act

c onc e r n i n g lia b i l i t y a nd t o s o me da ma g e s . Th e onl y i s s u e s wh i c h we

will di s c us s ar e t hos e whe r e t he cha ncel l or di s a gr eed wi t h t he s peci a l

ma s t e r or whe r e t he r e wa s an er r one ous appl i cat i on of t he l a w.

The f i r s t i s s u e de a l s wi t h a pur e ques t i on of l a w. Th e ques t i o n

p r e s e n t e d i s wh e t h e r a wi t n e s s , who i s not a n own e r of pr ope r t y ma y

t e s t i f y t o t h e va l u e of me r c h a ndi s e a nd dama g e s t o i t .

" [ A] wi t ne s s who i s f a mi l i a r with t he va l ue of pr ope r t y of t he s a me

c ha r act e r ma y t e s t i f y t o t ha t va l ue . . . " Wi l s on v. Br y a n t , 167

Te nn. 107, 67 S. W. 2d 133, 134 ( 1934) .

A wi t ne s s , Mr . Ba i j u Ha r j a ni , t he s ubl e s s ee’ s s hop ma na ge r , wa s

a l l owe d t o t e s t i f y t o t h e v a l ue of t he da ma ge d me r c ha ndi s e ove r

pl a i nt i ff' s obj e c t i on. We f i nd t h i s t e s t i mony t o be e r r one ous l y

a dmitte d f o r t wo r e a s ons . Fi r s tly, t he wi t ne s s wa s ne ve r qua l i f i e d as

b e i n g f a mi l i a r wi t h t he va l ue of pr ope r t y of t he s a me cha r act e r .

Se c ondl y , t h e me a s u r e of da ma g e s us e d by t h e wi t n e s s does not c o mpor t

with e xi s ting la w.

I t i s a we l l - a c c e p t e d pr i n c i p l e of la w in thi s s t a t e tha t da ma ge s

t o pe r s ona l pr ope r t y ma y be me a s u r e d by ei t h e r t h e c o s t of r e p a i r or

t he r e d uc tion i n f a i r ma r ke t va l ue . Se e Co i n e r , " Te nne s s e e La w of
6

Da ma ge s , " Se c tion 6- 3. Thi s r ul e is f ur t he r s e t f or t h in the c a s e of

Ande r s o n v. I nma n, 3 Te nn. App. 195 ( 1926) , whi c h ha s been i nc or por a t e d

i n t o Te nne s s e e Pa t t e r n I n s t r u c t i ons , Ci v i l 14. 40 as f o l l o ws :

. . . if the da ma g e s ha v e not be e n r e p a i r e d , or i f t h e

pr ope r t y is not capa bl e of r e pa i r s o as t o r e s t or e t he t hr e e

f a c t o r s of f unc t i on, a ppe a r a n c e , a n d va l ue as t he y exi s t e d

i mme di a t e l y be f o r e t h e [ i n c i d e n t ] , t h e n t h e meas ur e of

d a ma ge s i s t h e di f f e r e n c e i n t h e f a i r ma r k e t va l u e of t h e

pr ope r t y i mme di a t e l y be f or e t he [ i nc i de nt ] and i mme di a t e l y

a f t e r t h e [ i n c i d e n t ] .

Th e f o l l o wi ng r u l e ha s a l s o bee n e nunci a t e d :

I n t h i s s t a t e , t h e or d i n a r y a nd bas i c me a s u r e of

da ma ge s f or i nj ur y t o pe r s on a l pr ope r t y i s t he di f f e r e nc e

be t ween i t s ma r ke t va l ue i mme di a t e l y be f or e and i mme di a t e l y

a f t e r t h e i n j u r y . I r vi ng Pu l p and Pa pe r , Lt d. v. Dunba r

Tr a ns f e r and St or a ge Co . , 732 F. 2d 511 ( 6 t h Ci r . 1984) ;

Ya z o o a n d M. V. R. Co. v . Willia ms , 182 Te nn. 241, 185

S. W. 2d 527, 529 ( Te nn. 1945) ; Te nne s s ee J ur i s pr ude nce,

Da ma g e s , § 18, pa g e 42.

None of t h e pr ope r me a s u r e s we r e e mp l oye d i n t h i s c a s e . The

witne s s , Mr . Ba i j u Ha r j a ni, who t e s t i f i e d a s t o t he da ma ge s t o t he

me r c ha ndi s e , te s tif i e d onl y a s t o t h e c o s t of t h e da ma g e d or de s t r oye d

p r ope r t y . We hol d t ha t t he t e s t i mony of Mr . Ha r j a ni wa s i mp r o p e r l y

a dmitte d and f ur t he r t he t e s t i mony i f al l owe d i s i ns uf f i c i e nt evi de nc e

a s a ma t t e r of l a w upon whi c h a j udgme nt f or da ma ge s t o pe r s ona l

p r ope r t y c a n be ba s e d .

The a ppe l l a n t ne x t i n s i s t s t h a t t h e da ma g e s f o r pe r s ona l pr ope r t y

s houl d be r e s t r i c t e d t o t h e a mount of l o s s a s s t a t e d i n a s wo r n pr oof

o f l o s s pr e p a r e d by t he appe l l ee. We agr ee t ha t t he pr oof of l os s wa s
7

a d mi s s i b l e and t he r ecor d r e f l ect s t ha t i t wa s admi t t e d i nt o evi de nce.

Ad mi s s i ons can be us e d not onl y as s ubs t a nt i ve evi de nc e but al s o as

e vi de nc e t ouc h i ng t h e c r e d i b i lity of t he wi t ne s s . Admi s s i ons ar e i n

n o wa y c onc l us i ve . Se e Te nne s s e e Ru l e s of Ev i d e n c e , Ru l e 803( 1 . 2 ) .

We f i nd no me r i t i n t hi s i s s ue .

As to the t hi r d i s s ue , t he r e i s ma t e r i a l evi de nce t o s uppor t t h e

j udgme n t of t he t r i a l cour t and s peci a l ma s t e r . Thus , app l y i ng t h e

ma t e r i a l evi de nce r ul e as we ha ve di s c us s e d s upr a , we f i nd no me r i t i n

t hi s is s ue .

I s s ue s f our and f i ve ar e int e r r e l a t e d and we wi l l cons i de r t he m

t oge t he r .

Unde r t h e s ubl e a s e a g r e e me n t be t we e n c ount e r - p l a i n t i f f , Co l e , a n d

t h e s ubl e s s e e , Ut t a m, we f i nd t h e f o l l o wi ng pr ovi s i ons :

7 . Ma i nt e na nc e and Re pa i r .

a . Subl e ssor sha l l ma ke a l l st r u c t u r a l r e pa i r s s uc h

a s s uppor t s , r oof a nd t h e e x t e r i o r wa l l s of t h e bui l d i ng i n

a t i me l y ma nne r dur i ng t he t e r m of t hi s l eas e .

b . Subl e s s e e s h a l l , dur i ng t h e t e r m of t h i s a g r e e me n t

a t hi s s o l e e xpe n s e , ot h e r wi s e ma i n t a i n bot h t h e i n t e r i o r

a n d e x t e r i o r of t h e l e a s e d pr e mi s e s i n a s good or d e r a n d

r e pa i r a s it is a t t h e c o mme n c e me n t of t h i s l e a s e , r e a s ona b l e we a r a n d t e a r e x c e p t e d , nor wi l l t he s ubl e s s ee s uf f e r

o r pe r mi t a n y wa s t e or ne g l e c t of pr ope r t y and wi l l r e pa i r

o r r e s t or e t he s a me a s o f t e n as ma y be neces s a r y i n or de r

t o keep t he l eas e d pr e mi s e s i n a good s t a t e of r e pa i r .

* * * * *
8

The r e f or e , unde r t h e e xpr e s s t e r ms of t h e c ont r a c t be t we e n t h e

s ubl e ssor a nd s ubl e s s e e , t h e s ubl e s s o r i s r e qui r e d t o ma i n t a i n t h e r oof

i n good r e pa i r . A f a i l ur e t o do s o, eve n i f t h e f a ul t of anot he r ,

woul d c ons t i t u t e a br e a c h of t h e s ubl eas e agr eeme nt . I f t he r e i s s uc h

a br each and t he s ubl e s s ee s u f f e r s da ma g e s , he woul d be e n t i t l e d t o

r ecove r hi s l osse s f r om t he s ubl e s s or , i nc l udi ng da ma ge s t o t he ar eas

whe r e t he s ubl e s s ee wa s r e s pons i bl e f or ma i nt e na nce. “Th e pur pos e of

a sse ssi ng da ma ge s i n br each of cont r act c a s e s i s t o pl a c e t h e pl a i n t i f f

a s near l y a s possi bl e i n t he sa me pos i t i on she woul d ha ve been i n ha d

t he c ont r a c t be e n pe r f o r me d , but t h e nonbr e a c h i ng par t y i s not t o be

put in a ny bet t e r pos i t i on by r e c ove r y of da ma g e s f o r t h e br e a c h of t h e

c ont r act t ha n he woul d ha ve been i f t he cont r act ha d b e e n f u l l y

p e r f o r me d . Ac t i on Ads , I nc . v. Wi l l i a m B. Ta nne r Co . , 592 S. W. 2d 572

( Te nn. App. 1979) . ” La mmons v. Cha mbe r l a i n, 909 S. W. 2d 795 ( Te nn. App.

1993) .

I t cannot be s e r i ous l y ar gue d t ha t t he s ubl e s s e e di d not s uf f e r

da ma ge s f r om de f ect s i n t h e r o o f . Unde r t h e f a c t s of t h i s c a s e , t h e

s ubl e s s e e wi t hhe l d $10, 000. 0 0 in r e n t f o r da ma g e s t o t h e i n t e r i o r of

t he bui l d i n g and t he me r c ha ndi s e l ocat e d t he r e i n. The r ecor d doe s not

r e f l e c t whe t h e r a ny of t h e moni e s wi t hhe l d wa s e v e r pa i d t o t h e

s ubl e ssor . I n any eve nt , t he s ubl e s s e e coul d ha ve ma i nt a i ne d an a c t i o n

a g a i n s t t h e s ubl e s s o r f or da ma ge s pr oxi ma t e l y c a u s e d by t h e de f e c t i v e

r oof , i n c l udi ng a r eas t ha t t he s ubl e s s ee wa s obl i ga t e d t o ma i nt a i n

unde r t he t e r ms of t he l eas e pr ovi de d t he ma i nt e na nce cos t s we r e

i n c r e a s e d by t h e de f e c t i v e r oof .
9

We f i nd t ha t i s s ue s f our and f i ve ar e gove r ne d by t h e f ollowi ng

r ul e s of la w.

Al t hough not e xpr e s s l y s o denomi n a t e d i n t h e c o mp l a i n t , t h e gr a v a me n of t h i s s u i t i s i nde mn i t y ; t h a t i s , t h e

pl a i nt i f f is s eeki ng r e i mbur s e me nt of da ma ge s he expect s t o

pa y t o a t h i r d par t y f o r da ma g e s s u f f e r e d by t h e t h i r d pa r t y

a s a r e s u l t of de f e nda n t ' s de f e c t i v e pe r f o r ma n c e of a

c ont r a c t wi t h pl a i n t i f f or de f e nda n t ' s br e a c h of wa r r a n t y

i n a s a l e t o pl a i nt i ff.

Co n t r a c t s of i nde mni f i cat i on ma y be expr e s s , or ma y

a r i s e by i mp l i c a t i on f r o m t h e r e l a t i ons h i p of the pa r tie s .

Hous e boa t i ng Co r p . of Ame r i ca v. Ma r s ha l l , Te nn. 1977, 553

S. W. 2d 588.

A pe r s on who, i n whol e o r i n par t , ha s di s c h a r g e d a

dut y whi c h i s owe d by hi m but whi c h, as be t we e n hi ms e l f a n d

a not h e r , s houl d ha ve been di s c ha r ge d by t he ot he r , i s

e ntitle d t o i nde mn i t y f r o m t h e ot h e r un l e s s ba r r e d by t he

wr ongf u l na t ur e of hi s own conduc t . Sout h e r n Co a l & Coke Co .

v . Beech Gr ove Mi n . Co. , 53 Te nn. App. 108, 381 S. W. 2d 299

( 1963) ; Ca r t e r v. E. T. & W. N. C. Tr a n s p . Co. , 35 Te nn. App.

196; 243 S. W. 2d 505 ( 1951) .

A c ont r a c t of i nde mn i t y ne e d not be e xpr e s s ; i nde mn i t y

ma y be r e c ove r e d i f t he evi de nce est a bl i s he s an i mpl i e d

c ont r act . I n a ddi t i on, a r i ght to i nde mni t y exi s t s whe ne ve r

one pa r t y is e xpos e d to lia bility by t he act i on of anot he r

who, i n l a w or i n e qui t y , s houl d ma k e good t h e l o s s of t h e

ot he r . The r i ght of i mpl i e d i nde mni t y i n cont r act ua l cas e s

i s ba s e d upon a br each of cont r act by t he pe r s on aga i n s t

whom i nde mn i t y i s s ought , . . . .

Stive r Mk t g . , I n c . , v. Pe r f o r ma n c e Bu s . Fo r ms , I n c . , 1991 Te nn. App.

LEXI S 93 0.

Thi s c a s e ma y be a n a l ogi z e d t o t h e a u t hor i t y s e t out a bove. Th e

c ount e r c l a i m di d not expr e s s l y i nc l ude a cl a i m s peci f i cal l y de s i gna t e d

a s a c l a i m f o r i nde mn i t y but i t doe s i nc l ude a cl a i m f or da ma ge s pa i d

out t o her t e n a n t .
10

We f i nd t ha t t he c oun t e r-pl a i nt i ff is e nt i t l e d t o re c ove r from

t he count e r - de f e nda nt f or da ma ge s t o t h e me r c h a ndi s e of t he s ubl e s s e e

a n d ot h e r da ma g e s f o r wh i c h t h e s ubl e s s e e c oul d l ook t o t h e s ubl e s s o r

f or pa yme nt . The r e f or e , we f i nd no me r i t i n i s s ue s f our and f i ve .

We a f f i r m t h e j udgme n t of t h e t r i a l c our t on al l i s s u e s e x c e p t

t he f i r s t. We f i nd tha t t he wr ong meas ur e of da ma ge s wa s ut i l i zed in

d e t e r mi n i n g da ma g e s t o t h e s ubl e s s ee’ s me r c h a ndi s e . Ac c o r d i ngl y , t h e

j udgme n t f or da ma ge t o t he me r c ha ndi s e i s vacat e d. Thi s cas e mu s t

r e ma nde d to the tr i a l c our t f or a r e t r i a l a nd r e c a l c u l a t i on of da ma ge s

t o t h e me r c h a ndi s e l o c a t e d wi t h i n t h e bui l d i ng i n ques t i on.

The appe l l ee i n he r br i e f ha s a s k e d t h i s c our t t o modi f y t h e

a wa r d t o her by i n c r e a s i ng i t by $2, 887. 50, wh i c h s h e c l a i ms woul d

c ompe ns a t e he r f o r t h e f u l l a mount s h e wa s r e qui r e d t o pay f o r r e pa i r s

t o t h e r oof . Th e r e i s ma t e r i a l e v i d e n c e t o s uppor t t h e f i ndi ngs of the

s peci a l ma s t e r and t h e c onc ur r e nt f i ndi ngs of t he cha ncel l or . Unde r

t h e s e c i r c u ms t a n c e s , a ppe l l e e ' s r e que s t mu s t be de n i e d . 

Cos t s ar e t a xe d equa l l y be t we e n t h e a ppe l l a n t , Ri c h a r d Ga u s e and

t he a ppe l l e e , J a n i c e Co l e . Th i s c a s e i s r e ma nde d t o t h e t r i a l c our t

f or s uc h ot h e r a c t i on as i s ne c e s s a r y i n a c c o r d a n c e wi t h t h i s opi n i on.

______________________________

 Don T. Mc Mu r r a y , J udge
11

CONCUR:

___________________________________

He r s c h e l P. Fr a nks , J udge

___________________________________

Ch a r l e s D. Su s a no, J udge
I N THE COURT OF APPEALS

RI CHARD GAUSE d/ b/ a ROOFWORKS ) SEVI ER CHANCERY

OF TENNESSEE, ) C. A. NO. 03A01- 9707- CH- 00001

 )

 Pl a i ntif f - Appe lla nt )

 )

 )

 )

 )

v s . ) HON. CHESTER R. RAI NWATER, J R.

 ) CHANCELLOR

 )

 )

 )

 )

J ANI CE COLE d/ b/ a RI VERSI DE ) AFFI RMED I N PART, VACATED I N 

SHOP a nd J ERRY OGLE, ) PART, AND REMANDED.

 )

 De f e nda nt s - Appe l l ees )

JUDGMENT

Thi s appeal c a me on t o be hear d upon t he r ecor d f r om t he Cha ncer y

Cour t of Se v i e r Count y , br i e f s a nd ar gume n t of c ouns e l . Upon

c ons i d e r a t i o n t h e r e o f , t h i s Cour t i s of t h e opi n i o n t h a t t h e r e wa s s o me

r e ve r s i bl e e r r or in the tr i a l c our t .

We a f f i r m t h e j udgme n t of t h e t r i a l c our t on al l i s s u e s e x c e p t

da ma ge s for me r c h a ndi s e . We f i nd t h a t t h e wr ong me a s u r e of da ma ge s wa s

utiliz e d i n de t e r mi ni ng da ma g e s t o t he s ubl e s s ee’ s me r c ha ndi s e .

Ac c o r d i ngl y , t h e j udgme n t f o r da ma g e t o t h e me r c h a ndi s e i s va c a t e d .

Thi s c a s e i s r e ma nde d t o t h e t r i a l c our t f o r a r e t r i a l and r ecal c ul a -

tion o f da ma g e s t o t h e me r c h a ndi s e l o c a t e d wi t h i n t h e bui l d i ng i n

que s t i on.

Cos t s a r e t a x e d e qua l l y bet we e n t h e a ppe l l a n t , Ri c h a r d Ga u s e and

t he a ppe l l e e , J a n i c e Co l e . Th i s c a s e i s r e ma nde d t o t h e t r i a l c our t

f or s uc h ot h e r a c t i o n a s i s ne c e s s a r y i n a c c o r d a n c e wi t h t h i s opi n i on.
13

 PER CURI AM