The appropriate measure of quantum meruit damages is the reasonable value of the material and services that accrued to the actual benefit of the other party, less any damages suffered by the other party. No. 96AP-265, unreported. Because all involved agreed that no express fee agreement ever existed between Saker and any of the defendants for the specific legal services Saker provided to defendants, quantum meruit is a proper theory of recovery. Baer, supra . Defendants, however, objected when plaintiff's expert witness was asked the fair hourly value of Saker's services.
Defendants assert that the question was outside the scope of their cross-examination of the witness.
Generally, the redirect examination of a witness cannot exceed the scope of the cross-examination. Any relaxation of the rule is but an exercise of discretion, and not reviewable. The trial court thus has discretion to allow a witness to testify on redirect examination to facts that might have been elicited during the witness' testimony in chief. Defendants do not explain how the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the expert witness to testify to the fair hourly value for Saker's legal services. The witness' direct examination mainly concerned the reasonableness of the hours Saker spent on the various matters he handled for defendants, and a question concerning the fair value of that time could have been elicited in that direct examination.