Opinion ID: 2087860
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Evidence Concerning the Deck Mold

Text: Third, Cazzani argued that the trial justice, in rendering his decision, overlooked and misconstrued material evidence concerning the deck mold produced by Pilot's Point. Specifically, Cazzani asserted that the trial justice erred in finding that the deck mold was made in a workmanlike manner and additionally erred by including the cost of storing the deck mold in the damage award. This Court has consistently held that the factual findings of a trial justice sitting without a jury are entitled to great weight, Hawkins v. Town of Foster, 708 A.2d 178, 182 (R.I.1998), and we shall not disturb those findings unless the justice has overlooked or misconceived material evidence or was otherwise clearly wrong. State v. Collins, 679 A.2d 862, 865 (R.I.1996). Such error did not occur here, in our opinion. In rendering his decision, the trial justice thoroughly summarized the evidence that had been presented. In particular he reviewed the expert testimony concerning the construction and quality of the boat molds and found that the expert testifying on behalf of Pilot's Point was the more credible one.2/17/00 Moreover, the opinion of Pilot's Point's expert witness was given greater weight because he had participated in the construction of the molds and had observed them at the time the dispute arose over their quality. The trial justice was less impressed with the testimony of Cazzani's expert because the witness had no firsthand knowledge of the construction of the molds and only observed the molds five years after they were constructed, at which time they had been physically altered and had been exposed to the elements. Although the trial justice primarily discussed the hull mold, his findings of fact on the credibility and reliability of the expert witnesses were equally applicable to the quality of the deck mold. Therefore, it is our opinion that the justice did not err in finding that the deck mold was produced in a workmanlike manner. The trial justice further stated that Pilot's Point had proven its right to collect for storage charges through the credible testimony of Pilot's Point's general manager, who testified that Cazzani had never informed Pilot's Point that it was formally rejecting the deck mold. The trial justice also found that Pilot's Point notified Cazzani that storage charges would accumulate until the deck mold was removed by Cazzani. Thus, the findings of fact were supported by material evidence sufficient to include storage charges in the award of damages to Pilot's Point.