Title: QORE, Inc., d/b/a QORE Property Services v. Bradford Building Company, Inc.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1070865
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: June 12, 2009

Rel 06/12/2009
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance
sheets of Southern Reporter.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334)
229-0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made
before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
 OCTOBER TERM, 2008-2009
_________________________
1070865
_________________________
QORE, Inc., d/b/a QORE Property Sciences
v.
Bradford Building Company, Inc.
Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court
(CV-06-6292)
COBB, Chief Justice.
This appeal involves a negligence claim by Bradford
Building Company, Inc. (Bradford), against QORE, Inc., d/b/a
QORE Property Sciences ("QORE").  Bradford's claims arise out
of the failure of a concrete slab during the construction of
1070865
2
a building on the slab.  The slab failed because it was built
over an excavated fuel-tank pit that had been filled with
material that was not properly compacted.  QORE appeals from
the Jefferson Circuit Court's denial of its motion for a
judgment as a matter of law.  We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
     When, as in this case, an appellant challenges a trial
court's ruling on a motion for a judgment as a matter of law,
the appellate court views the evidence in the light most
favorable to the nonmovant.  Waddell & Reed, Inc. v. United
Investors Life Ins. Co., 875 So. 2d 1143, 1152 (Ala. 2003).
Therefore, with regard to facts as to which evidence or
testimony was in conflict at trial, the Court has set out
those facts in the light most favorable to Bradford, the
nonmovant.
A.  Purchase of Property
In December 2004, RKM Leeds, LLC ("RKM"), purchased a
parcel of real property from JDW Properties I, LLC ("JDW
Properties").  RKM intended to construct a building to house
a Walgreens pharmacy on the site and then to sell the
developed property to Walgreen Company.  Before the sale of
1070865
3
the real property, a gasoline service station had been
operating on the property.  Under the contract for the sale of
the property, JDW Properties was to remove the underground
fuel-storage tanks and related fuel lines from the property,
and RKM was responsible for placing and compacting fill in the
pits left by the removal of the fuel-related equipment.
B.  Gallet Report
In May 2005, RKM hired Gallet & Associates, Inc.
("Gallet"), to determine whether subsurface conditions would
provide the necessary structural support for the Walgreens
store.  Gallet investigated the site and, on June 15, 2005,
provided RKM a report of its results ("the Gallet report").
In its report, Gallet noted that the "store will be located at
the site of an existing gas station."  Gallet recommended that
"[t]he existing ... buried utilities (including existing fuel
product lines and underground storage tanks) should be
excavated from the proposed building and parking areas."  
Because excavating the tanks would create pits at least
15 feet deep, the Gallet report recommended that these
"abandoned tank pits should be backfilled with engineered
fill."  "Engineered fill" is fill that has been tested by an
1070865
4
engineering firm and deemed suitable for use as structural
fill and that has been properly installed and compacted.  The
Gallet report specified that,
"[i]n building areas, structural fill should be
extended a minimum of 5 feet outside all building
lines, paved areas, and slopes.  The fill should be
placed in thin loose lifts not exceeding 8 inches in
thickness and compacted accordingly."
Soil compaction is performed by placing appropriate fill
material in thin layers and compressing each layer with a
roller or other compacting machinery before adding the next
layer.  Fill is compacted to prevent settling of the soil over
time, which can undermine the structural integrity of
buildings constructed over the settling soil.
The Gallet report also recommended that, after the site
had been excavated, backfilled, and graded, but before the
placement of any extra fill to raise the grade to the
specifications in the building plans, "the exposed subgrade
should be thoroughly proof rolled."  "Proof rolling" is a
process in which the surface of the soil is carefully observed
as a fully loaded tandem-axle dump truck is driven over it.
Any soft or structurally unsound soils revealed by the proof
rolling are undercut and replaced with suitable well compacted
1070865
5
engineered fill.  Proof rolling does not detect structurally
unsound soils or subsurface conditions at depths greater than
roughly three feet below the surface.
C.  QORE/RKM Contract
After the Gallet report had been submitted, RKM hired
QORE 
to 
perform 
construction-materials-testing 
("CMT")
services related to site grading and building construction.
The contract entered into between QORE and RKM stated that the
scope of CMT services to be performed by QORE "will be in
accordance with the Master Work Scope of CMT Services
requested by Walgreen[] Company and Walgreens' Criteria
Specification Fiscal 2005."
The "Master Work Scope of CMT Services requested by
Walgreen[] Company" included the following "soils testing and
site preparation" services: 
"-Standard 
Proctor 
[a 
soil-compaction 
test]
"-Modified 
Proctor 
[a 
soil-compaction 
test]
"-Nuclear Gauge [a soil-density test]
"-Compaction Control Testing
"-Compaction and Proof Roll Observation
"-Review of Soil Boring Report and Bearing
  Capacities."
The "Walgreens Criteria Specifications, Fiscal 2005"
("the Walgreens specifications") included a schedule of
1070865
6
"inspections, tests, and similar services represent[ing] the
minimum scope of quality control services to be performed,"
including the following:
"Verify suitable soil bearing capacity
"Field density testing, compaction testing
"Optimum moisture/maximum density testing
"Pavement proof rolling
"Pavement Surface Smoothness Testing"
The Walgreens specifications also set forth specific
requirements 
for 
"Sitework/Excavation," 
including 
the
following:
"Testing: ....
"1.
Soil reports of actual unconfined compressive
strength 
of 
each 
strata 
tested. 
 
Verify
soil/fill bearing capacity conforms to design
requirements.  Perform one test at each column
pad and per each 50 lft. of foundation....
"5.
Final 
building 
pad 
verification 
letter,
submitted by the Geotechnical Engineer at the
completion of Grading operations, summarizing
satisfactory completion of all tests performed
prior to slab placement."
Further, the Walgreens specifications incorporated the
Gallet report.  Colin Sewell, project manager for QORE,
testified at trial that part of QORE's responsibility was to
ensure that the recommendations in the Gallet report were
followed.
1070865
7
In addition to providing that QORE’s services would "be
in accordance with the Master Work Scope of CMT Services
requested by Walgreen[] Company and Walgreens' Criteria
Specification Fiscal 2005," the contract between QORE and RKM
also stated:
"The 
following 
list of construction materials
testing 
was 
provided 
to 
us 
[i.e., 
QORE] 
by
Walgreen[] [Company] during the CMT selection and we
consider it to be the master scope of services.
This scope includes requirements in the Project
Specifications Manual.
"I.
Earthwork
 
"-Density testing of mass fill and utility trench
backfill...
"-Evaluation of soil subgrades prior to fill
placement...
"-Standard 
Proctor 
compaction 
tests, 
where
required...
"-Modified Proctor tests, where required (does not
currently apply)
"-Nuclear gauge density testing, if required
"-Review of geotechnical subsurface exploration
report [the Gallet report]....
"We will perform our evaluations and tests in
general accordance with the project specifications
and applicable standards of the industry in the
local area of the project.  Our personnel do not
have the authority to direct the contractor or his
subcontractors in the performance of their work or
to authorize changes in the construction contract.
We will, however, bring to their attention any
observations or test results that indicate non-
compliance with the contract documents.  We point
out that the tests will be performed on a random
1070865
8
basis and they are not a guarantee of the work in
accordance with the construction documents. ...
"Standard of Care.  The [CMT] Services [provided by
QORE] will be performed in accordance with the
standards customarily provided by a firm rendering
the same or similar services in the same geographic
region during the same time period."
D. Bradford, RKM's General Contractor
On September 8, 2005, RKM entered into a contract with
Bradford pursuant to which Bradford was to serve as general
contractor for the construction of the Walgreens drug-store
building.  Bradford had built Walgreens stores for RKM on
previous occasions.  For the construction project at issue in
this case, Bradford subcontracted the grading work on the site
to Borden & Brewster Contractors, Inc. ("B&B"). 
Bradford undertook the responsibility to inform QORE of
the progress of the construction.  However,  Bradford's
personnel did not know what construction-materials tests
needed to be performed, and, as the general contractor,
Bradford did not undertake any responsibility to direct QORE
as to which tests to perform.  Rather, as the firm that was to
perform the CMT services for the project, QORE was responsible
for determining what tests to perform at each of the various
1070865
The record is conflicting as to whether JDW Properties,
1
its owner, or a related business entity entered into the
contract hereinafter described for removal of the fuel tanks
and related work.
9
stages of construction and to send an engineer or technician,
as appropriate, to perform those tests at the proper times.
E.  Improper Backfilling
JDW Properties or a related entity  entered into a
1
contract with CDG Engineers & Associates, Inc. ("CDG"), to
remove the underground storage tanks and fuel lines from the
site.  CDG subcontracted the work to Milam & Co. Construction,
Inc. ("Milam").
On the morning of October 11, 2005, B&B's general
superintendent, Donald Edwards, visited the construction site
to observe the progress of Milam's underground-storage-tank-
removal work.  Edwards noticed that Milam had not compacted
the fill dirt that was being placed in the large pits left by
the removal of the underground storage tanks.  Edwards
telephoned Bradford's project manager, Michael Cahoon, to
inform him that Milam's dump trucks were dumping loose fill
into the pits where the fuel tanks had been and that he saw no
compaction equipment at the site.
1070865
10
Cahoon went to the site and saw that the backfilling was
not being done properly.  Edwards and Cahoon were concerned
that settling problems could develop if the Walgreens drug-
store building was built over the improperly backfilled pits.
Cahoon immediately telephoned RKM to inform RKM of the
problem.  RKM instructed Cahoon to telephone CDG and Milam,
the contractor and subcontractor performing the tank-removal
work, and Cahoon did so.  Both CDG and Milam assured Cahoon
that they would compact the fill in the fuel-tank pits.
 RKM also instructed Cahoon to call QORE about the
matter.  At 12:44 p.m. and again at 1:03 p.m. on October 11,
2005, shortly after speaking with representatives of CDG and
Milam about the improper backfilling of the pits left by the
removal of the underground tanks, Cahoon telephoned QORE and
informed QORE of the improper backfilling of the pits.
Thereafter, Bradford relied on QORE to verify that the
backfill in the pits had been properly compacted so that the
bearing capacity of the soil was sufficient to support the
Walgreens store building to be constructed on the site.
F.  QORE's Subgrade Evaluation
1070865
11
By early November 2005, Bradford and B&B had begun work
at the site.  The site had been stripped of all asphalt,
concrete, debris, and vegetation, but Bradford and B&B had not
begun to place fill on the site to level the surface to the
specified grade.  Bradford and B&B relied on QORE to test the
existing soil and to inform them whether the soil met the
necessary criteria before they began placing fill to level the
site or proceeded with construction of the Walgreens building.
Colin Sewell, an engineer in training and project manager for
QORE, traveled to the project site to perform a "subgrade
evaluation" to determine whether the soil met specifications
and would support the slab and ultimately the building.
It is undisputed that the only test Sewell performed at
the site was a proof roll.  During this test, Sewell
identified several areas where the proof roll revealed that
the ground was too soft or was unsuitable for building, and
these areas were corrected.  Sewell knew the site had formerly
been used for a gasoline station.  He had read the Gallet
report and was familiar with its recommendation that the fuel
tanks and fuel lines be removed and that properly compacted
engineered fill be placed in the pits left by their removal.
1070865
12
Sewell asked the B&B representative at the site where the
pits had been located, but the B&B representative did not
know.  Sewell made no further attempts to locate and
specifically test the fill material in the tank pits.
Frank Upchurch, a materials engineer who testified at
trial as an expert witness for Bradford, testified that, if
QORE had performed density tests on the fill, a subgrade
evaluation, and other tests specified in QORE's contract with
RKM, QORE would have detected that the material in the tank
pits had not been properly compacted before Bradford began to
build.  According to Upchurch, the proof roll QORE performed
was not sufficient to satisfy QORE's obligation to verify that
soil in the tank pits met the density and compaction
specifications for the construction project or that it would
support the slab.  Upchurch further testified that, by
performing only a proof roll, QORE did not meet the standard
of care set forth in its contract with RKM.  According to
Upchurch, performing the testing procedures and fulfilling the
obligations specified in the contract in accordance with the
standard of care would have required QORE  (1) to ask further
questions and to perform further research to determine the
1070865
13
location of the tank pits and whether the tank pits had been
properly backfilled and compacted; (2) to ask to review the
results of any existing soil-compaction tests of the tank-pit
areas; and (3) to perform any drilling, field-density, or
compaction tests needed to verify that the soil in the tank
pits met the project specifications and would bear the load of
the planned construction.  
According to Upchurch, if QORE was unable to locate and
test the tank pits, QORE should have informed RKM and Bradford
that it could not verify the suitability of the fill in the
tank pits and warn them that, if the tank pits were not
properly filled and compacted, the building could settle and
sustain damage.
G.  Failure of the Slab
After QORE performed the proof roll, Bradford built a
concrete slab on the site to serve as the foundation for the
Walgreens drug-store building.  However, because the soils in
the tank pits had not been properly backfilled, they began to
settle, causing the slab to break.  Bradford made the
necessary repairs, which it paid for. Bradford presented
evidence indicating that repairing the slab cost $223,000 and
1070865
14
that Bradford would have incurred no expense if QORE had
discovered the problem with the fill material in the tank pits
before Bradford built the slab. At trial, a representative of
Bradford testified that Bradford made "a business decision" to
pay those costs, because, at the time, it was unclear who, if
anyone, was at fault for the broken slab or why the slab
failed, because Bradford had a contractual duty to RKM to
construct a slab on which a store building could be
constructed, and because Bradford risked failing to meet its
contractual 
obligations 
and 
damage 
to 
its 
business
relationships with RKM and Walgreens if the broken slab was
not corrected and the store was not able to open on time.
H. Court Proceedings
On October 27, 2006, Bradford filed the underlying
action.  On January 8, 2008, the trial court entered judgment
on a jury verdict finding QORE liable to Bradford in
negligence and awarding Bradford $196,937.96.  QORE moved for
judgment as a matter of law, arguing that Bradford had not
presented substantial evidence of any of the elements of its
negligence claim.  On February 25, 2008, the trial court
denied the motion.  On March 18, 2008, QORE filed a notice of
1070865
15
appeal from the denial of its motion for a judgment as a
matter of law.
Standard of Review
     "When reviewing a ruling on a motion for a JML
[judgment as a matter of law], this Court uses the
same standard the trial court used initially in
deciding whether to grant or deny the motion for a
JML.  Palm Harbor Homes, Inc. v. Crawford, 689 So.
2d 3 (Ala. 1997).  Regarding questions of fact, the
ultimate question is whether the nonmovant has
presented sufficient evidence to allow the case to
be submitted to the jury for a factual resolution.
Carter v. Henderson, 598 So. 2d 1350 (Ala. 1992).
The 
nonmovant 
must have presented substantial
evidence in order to withstand a motion for a JML.
See § 12-21-12, Ala. Code 1975; West v. Founders
Life Assurance Co. of Fla., 547 So. 2d 870, 871
(Ala. 1989).  A reviewing court must determine
whether the party who bears the burden of proof has
produced substantial evidence creating a factual
dispute requiring resolution by the jury.  Carter,
598 So. 2d at 1353.  In reviewing a ruling on a
motion for a JML, this Court views the evidence in
the light most favorable to the nonmovant and
entertains such reasonable inferences as the jury
would have been free to draw.  Id.  Regarding a
question of law, however, this Court indulges no
presumption of correctness as to the trial court's
ruling.  Ricwil, Inc. v. S.L. Pappas & Co., 599 So.
2d 1126 (Ala. 1992)."
Waddell & Reed, Inc. v. United Investors Life Ins. Co., 875
So. 2d 1143, 1152 (Ala. 2003).
Analysis
1070865
16
QORE argues that the trial court erred in denying QORE’s
motion for a judgment as a matter of law because, according to
QORE, Bradford did not present sufficient evidence of any of
the elements of a negligence claim.  "In a negligence action
the plaintiff must prove (1) that the defendant owed the
plaintiff a duty; (2) that the defendant breached that duty;
(3) that the plaintiff suffered a loss or injury; and (4) that
the defendant's breach was the actual and proximate cause of
the plaintiff's loss or injury."  DiBiasi v. Joe Wheeler Elec.
Membership Corp., 988 So. 2d 454, 460 (Ala. 2008) (citing Ford
Motor Co. v. Burdeshaw, 661 So. 2d 236, 238 (Ala. 1995)).  
A.  Duty and Breach
In Harris v. Board of Water & Sewer Commissioners of
Mobile, 294 Ala. 606, 613, 320 So. 2d 624, 630 (1975), this
Court held that "where one party to a contract assumes a duty
to another party to that contract, and it is foreseeable that
injury to a third party--not a party to the contract--may
occur upon a breach of that duty, the promissor owes that duty
to all those within the foreseeable area of risk."  A breach
of such a duty that results in injury to a third party who is
1070865
Much of the testimony Bradford presented in relation to
2
the scope of QORE's duties under its contract with RKM was
offered 
through Bradford's expert.  QORE argues that
Bradford’s expert should not have been permitted to testify at
trial regarding the scope of QORE's contractual duties.
According to QORE, such testimony went beyond merely offering
expert testimony regarding the meaning of technical and trade
terms in the contract and instead encroached on the trial
court's duty to construe the contract as a matter of law.
QORE filed a motion in limine on this issue, which was denied.
However, QORE did not object during the trial to the
introduction of the challenged evidence, and it cites no
17
"within 
the 
foreseeable 
area 
of 
risk" 
is 
actionable
negligence.  Id.
According to QORE, Bradford did not meet its burden of
presenting substantial evidence indicating that QORE had a
duty to perform any test other than a proof roll before
Bradford poured the concrete slab foundation for the Walgreens
building.  However, according to the testimony of Bradford's
expert, had QORE performed the tests specified in its contract
with RKM in accordance with the standard of care specified in
the contract, either QORE would have verified that the soil in
the tank pits met the project specifications and that it would
support the building to be constructed on the property or it
would have alerted RKM and Bradford that it was not possible
to determine whether the soil in the tank pits would support
the building.2
1070865
portion of the record indicating that it obtained the express
acquiescence of the trial court that such an objection at
trial was unnecessary.  Likewise, our review of the record has
revealed no such acquiescence.  Therefore, we will not address
the issue because QORE did not preserve it for appellate
review.  See Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp. v. James, 646 So.
2d 669, 673 (Ala. 1994) (holding that this Court will not
review an adverse ruling on a motion in limine, absent proper
objection at trial or the trial court's express agreement that
such an objection is not necessary).
18
It is undisputed that QORE did not locate and test the
fill material in the tank pits or inform Bradford and RKM that
it was unable do so.  Thus, the evidence presented at trial
was sufficient to send to the jury the question whether QORE
owed and breached a contractual duty to verify that the soil
in the tank pits met the project specifications and that it
would support the building to be constructed on the property
or to warn that the appropriate tests had not been performed
and that the building could fail.  The trial court did not err
in submitting those issues to the jury.
B.  Reasonable Reliance
Even when a third party is not in privity with the
parties to a contract and is not a third-party beneficiary to
the contract, the third party may recover in negligence for
breach of a duty imposed by that contract if the breaching
1070865
19
party negligently performs the contract with knowledge that
others are relying on proper performance and the resulting
harm is reasonably foreseeable.  Cincinnati Ins. Cos. v.
Barber Insulation, Inc., 946 So. 2d 441, 446-47 (Ala. 2006).
Citing Cincinnati, supra, QORE argues that it was entitled to
a judgment as a matter of law because, according to QORE,
Bradford did not meet its burden of presenting substantial
evidence indicating that it reasonably relied on QORE to
verify whether the soil in the tank pits was suitable to
support the weight of the Walgreens building.
However, Bradford presented evidence indicating that
QORE, as the firm hired to perform CMT services, was hired for
the benefit of the construction project as a whole.  According
to one of the experts who testified at trial, it is general
practice in the construction industry that "everyone that's
working on the project is intended to benefit" from the CMT
services performed by the firm hired to perform those
services, whether they are a party to the contract or not, and
that it is reasonable and generally expected that all
contractors working on the project will rely on that firm's
CMT services rather than hire an independent firm to do the
1070865
20
same work for the contractor's benefit.  Further, Michael
Cahoon testified at trial that, in his experience as a manager
for a general contractor, it is generally expected that the
firm performing the CMT services will verify that the
recommendations in the geotechnical report (such as the Gallet
report) are followed and that project specifications have been
met.  Bradford further presented evidence indicating that it
had made QORE aware of the need to verify that the soil in the
tank pits was properly compacted, that QORE had a contractual
duty to so verify, and that Bradford was relying on QORE to
perform its duty so that the building would not fail because
of subsurface settling in the tank pits.
The above evidence is sufficient to create a genuine
issue of fact so that the trial court properly submitted the
case to the jury to decide whether Bradford had reasonably
relied on QORE to verify that the soil in the tank pits would
bear the weight of the Walgreens building.
C.  Proximate Cause
To overcome a motion for a judgment as a matter of law in
a negligence action, the plaintiff must present substantial
evidence indicating that the defendant's acts or omissions
1070865
21
proximately caused the plaintiff's injury.  See Brackin v.
Trimmier Law Firm, 897 So. 2d 207, 226 (Ala. 2004).  QORE
argues that it was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law
because, according to QORE, Bradford did not meet its burden
of presenting substantial evidence indicating that the failure
of the slab was proximately caused by QORE's failing to verify
whether the soil in the tank pits would support the Walgreens
building.  Rather, according to QORE, Bradford's decision to
pay to correct the underlying soil condition and to repair
the slab was an independent cause of Bradford's injury
because, QORE contends, Bradford was not contractually
obligated to incur those costs.
Other than general propositions of law that provide no
support for its argument, QORE cites no cases to substantiate
its theory that Bradford's fixing the problem with the slab at
its own expense was a voluntary, unforeseeable act that broke
the chain of proximate causation.  "'Authority supporting only
"general propositions of law" does not constitute a sufficient
argument for reversal.'" Walden v. Hutchinson, 987 So. 2d
1109, 1121 n. 4 (Ala 2007) (quoting Beachcroft Props., LLP,
901 So. 2d 703, 708 (Ala. 2004), quoting in turn Geisenhoff v.
1070865
22
Geisenhoff, 693 So. 2d 489, 491 (Ala Civ. App. 1997)).
Therefore, we will not consider QORE's argument that the trial
court erred in not finding that the chain of causation was
broken.  See City of Birmingham v. Business Realty Inv. Co.,
722 So. 2d 747, 752 (Ala. 1998) ("When an appellant fails to
cite any authority for an argument on a particular issue, this
Court may affirm the judgment as to that issue, for it is
neither this Court's duty nor its function to perform an
appellant's legal research." (citing Rule 28(a)(5), Ala. R.
App. P.; Spradlin v. Birmingham Airport Auth., 613 So. 2d 347
(Ala. 1993))).
D.  Contributory Negligence
QORE argues that it was entitled to a judgment as a
matter of law because, according to QORE, Bradford was
contributorily negligent, as a matter of law.  A plaintiff who
negligently contributes to his own injury cannot recover in a
negligence 
action, 
notwithstanding a showing that the
defendant was also negligent.  Hannah v. Gregg, Bland & Berry,
Inc., 840 So.2d 839, 860-61 (Ala. 2002).  To establish
contributory negligence as a matter of law, a defendant must
demonstrate that the plaintiff put himself at risk of being
1070865
23
injured and that the plaintiff had a conscious appreciation of
that risk at the moment the incident occurred. Id.
 In support of its argument, QORE points out that Michael
Cahoon had observed CDG and Milam improperly backfilling the
tank pits and that Cahoon testified that, "in hindsight," it
had been a mistake to trust CDG and Milam to properly compact
the soil in the tank pits and to rely on QORE to verify that
the soil in the tank pits had been suitably compacted.
However, as discussed, supra, it was not unreasonable for
Bradford to inform QORE of the problem and to thereafter rely
on QORE to verify that the soil in the tank pits had been
sufficiently compacted and to alert Bradford if the material
did not meet the project specifications.  The record contains
sufficient evidence from which a jury could reasonably
conclude that, at the time Bradford constructed the slab,
Bradford had not consciously placed itself at risk of being
harmed. Cahoon's testimony that, in hindsight, it had been a
mistake to rely on QORE does not entitle QORE to judgment as
a matter of law that Bradford was contributorily negligent.
E.  Damages
1070865
24
At trial, the parties stipulated that the appropriate
measure of compensatory damages in this case was the amount of
money that would place Bradford in the same condition it would
have 
occupied 
had 
QORE 
not 
breached 
its 
contractual
obligations to RKM.  See Poffenbarger v. Merit Energy Co., 972
So. 2d 792, 801 (Ala. 2007) ("Compensatory damages should
indeed be adequate to make the victim whole."); cf. Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc. v. Bowers, 752 So. 2d 1201 (Ala. 1999)
(discussing the proper measure of damages in negligence
actions when the only injury is damage to property).  QORE
argues that it was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law
because, according to QORE, Bradford did not present
substantial evidence of what Bradford would have paid to
correct the soil in the tank pits if QORE had detected the
unsuitability of the fill before Bradford built the slab.  
However, Bradford presented evidence indicating that, if
QORE had not breached its contract with RKM, the problem would
have been corrected before Bradford built the slab, and
Bradford would not have been placed in the position of paying
for any repairs to the slab or for bringing the tank pits to
project specifications in order to fulfill its obligations as
1070865
25
general contractor and to protect its business relationships.
Bradford also presented evidence that it incurred costs of
$223,000 to repair the slab.  Thus, the evidence was
sufficient to warrant a jury's determination as to the amount
of Bradford's damages.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the trial court did not err
in denying QORE's motion for a judgment as a matter of law.
We affirm.
AFFIRMED.
Lyons, Woodall, Stuart, Smith, Bolin, Parker, and Shaw,
JJ., concur.  
Murdock, J., concurs in the rationale in part and concurs
in the result.
1070865
Contrary to the suggestion in the main opinion, QORE's
3
argument in its initial brief is not based on whether
Bradford's actions in assuming responsibility for repair of
the slab were or were not "foreseeable."  It is Bradford that
injects the concept of foreseeability in an effort to "defend"
against the argument presented by QORE.  Even Bradford does
so, however, only with respect to the foreseeability of damage
to the slab if QORE failed to fulfill its duties, not the
foreseeability of Bradford's undertaking in response to that
damage. ("The proximate cause issue is not whether it was
reasonably foreseeable that Qore's conduct would cause
Bradford to pay for the repairs but instead, whether it was
reasonably foreseeable that Qore's conduct would result in
damage to the slab itself." Bradford's brief, at 35-36
(emphasis by Bradford; footnote omitted).)
26
MURDOCK, Justice (concurring in the rationale in part and
concurring in the result).
I respectfully decline to join in Part "C" of the
"Analysis" portion of the main opinion to the extent that it
concludes that QORE's brief does not cite sufficient authority
to place before us the issue whether, in the words of QORE's
brief, Bradford engaged in "an independent and voluntary
business decision" that broke the chain of proximate
causation.  The main opinion states that "[o]ther than general
propositions of law that provide no support for its argument,
QORE cites no cases to substantiate its theory that Bradford's
fixing the problem with the slab at its own expense was a
voluntary, unforeseeable[ ] act that broke the chain of
3
1070865
27
proximate causation.  '"Authority supporting only 'general
propositions of law' does not constitute a sufficient argument
for reversal."'"  ___ So. 3d at ___.  What the main opinion
refers to as "general propositions of law," however, appear to
me to be adequate support for the argument made in this case
by QORE, and that argument in turn appears to me to be
adequate to place before this Court the issue of proximate
causation.
QORE's discussion begins by explaining the four elements
of a negligence claim:
"To establish a negligence claim, a plaintiff must
establish four elements: 1) the existence of a legal
duty to a foreseeable plaintiff; 2) breach of that
legal duty by the defendant; 3) proximate causation;
and 4) damage or injury.  Martin v. Arnold, 643 So.
2d 564 (Ala. 1994); see also, Havard v. Palmer &
Baker Engineers, Inc., 293 Ala. 301, 306, 302 So. 2d
228 (1974)."
QORE's brief, at 29.  Certainly, the foregoing represents only
general propositions of law and would not be sufficient by
itself to present to us the issue of proximate causation.
QORE's brief continues as follows, however:
"This Court has defined 'proximate cause' as
follows:
"'The proximate cause of an injury is that
cause which, in the natural and probable
1070865
28
sequence 
of 
events, 
and 
without 
the
intervention or coming of some new or
independent cause, produces the injury, and
without which the injury would not have
occurred.'
"Alabama Power Co. v. Moore, 899 So. 2d 975, 979
(Ala. 2004)."
(Emphasis added.)  QORE then cites Byrd v. Commercial Credit
Corp., 675 So. 2d 392, 393 (Ala. 1996), for the proposition
that this Court has "defin[ed] proximate cause as 'an act or
omission that in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken
by any new and independent causes, produce[s] the injury and
without which the injury would not have occurred.'"  (Emphasis
added.)
The question QORE seeks to have us address is whether the
evidence in this case was sufficient to put the issue of
proximate causation to the jury.   As to this issue, QORE's
brief directly applies the above-stated legal principles to
the facts of the present case in a straightforward manner:
"Bradford's damages arose out of an independent and
voluntary business decision it made, as opposed to
a 
natural 
and 
probable 
chain 
[of] 
events
precipitated by QORE's negligence.  Bradford was
aware that under its contract with RKM, it had no
legal responsibility to make the building repairs.
Nevertheless, as Michael Cahoon, Bradford's project
manager, testified, Bradford's payment for the
building repairs was voluntarily made  to further
1070865
I suspect that most cases that would be apposite to a
4
situation such as this likely would discuss the issue in terms
of equitable subrogation, rather than negligence.  Compare,
e.g., American Cyanamide Co. v. United States Fid. & Guar.
Co., 459 So. 2d 851, 853-54 (Ala. 1984) (citing American
Southern Ins. Co. v. Dime Taxi Serv., Inc., 275 Ala. 51, 57,
151 So. 2d 783, 787 (1963)).
29
Bradford's business relationship with RKM and to
obtain more Walgreen's work."
(Emphasis added.)
Following this argument, QORE discusses the
evidence in more detail over the next several pages of its
brief and then draws conclusions as to the proper application
of the above-stated principles to that evidence.  I find
QORE's brief as to the issue of proximate causation sufficient
to comply with Rule 28, Ala. R. App. P., and to place before
us the issue of proximate causation.4
That said, I turn to the merits of QORE's argument.  On
its merits, QORE's argument fails in my view. 
Bradford presented evidence indicating that QORE was
aware that "if the soil in the tank pits was not properly
compacted, the building could be damaged and repairs would
have to be made."  Although Michael Cahoon testified that
Bradford's business relationships were a "factor" that
"influenced" its decision to pay for the repairs, he also
testified that, at the time Bradford made the decision to
1070865
30
repair the slab, it was unclear who was at fault.  According
to Cahoon, the slab failure left Bradford, as a general
contractor, "stuck between a rock and a hard place."  Cahoon
testified that the slab failure jeopardized Bradford's ability
to keep its contractual obligations to RKM and Walgreens, and
Bradford paid for the repairs in an effort to keep from losing
money it would otherwise have made on the project and from
losing future opportunities to do business for RKM and
Walgreens.  As a result, according to Cahoon, Bradford made a
"business decision to fix [the problem] and then get the store
open and figure out whose fault it was afterwards."  This, in
my view, constituted sufficient evidence for consideration by
the jury as to whether Bradford's actions were part of the
"natural and probable sequence of events" that could occur as
the result of QORE's failures.  It is sufficient evidence from
which a jury could conclude that Bradford's actions did not
represent "the intervention or coming of some new or
independent cause." 
The evidence presented at trial was
sufficient to create a question of fact as to whether QORE's
negligence proximately caused Bradford to be placed in the
position of bearing the loss for which it is seeking redress.
1070865
31
The trial court, in my view, did not err in submitting that
question to the jury.