Opinion ID: 1240195
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Verdict for Fox

Text: The mitigation-of-damages issue raised by the second assignment of error is addressed to the judgment confirming the verdict awarded Fox on its counterclaim. Fox's architect testified that Norris had installed the metal flashing improperly. His drawings pictured the flashing turned up eight inches. Norris turned it up no more than two inches and bent the metal by hand, leaving the corners rounded. As a result, rain and snow leaked into the buildings. Mr. Fox testified that Mr. Norris agreed to correct the defect but never did. Fox had the problem repaired by others at a cost, documented by paid invoices, of $2,757.81, the total mentioned in the pre-trial stipulation. Norris offered no evidence to contradict the expense Fox incurred. Instead, Norris maintained that much of the expense could have been avoided. Mr. Norris testified that Bud Mitchell, Fox's job supervisor, had asked him if the flashing was turned up high enough and that he had told him that this is normal, it's the standard way of doing that. According to Mr. Norris, this conversation had occurred when only two or three of the 20 units had been flashed and, after that, [n]o more was said about it. The expense entailed would have been much less, he said, if Fox had instructed him to correct the defect before the flashing was covered with siding by other workers. Borrowing language from Hannan v. Dusch, 154 Va. 356, 377, 153 S.E. 824, 831 (1930), Norris asked the trial court to instruct the jury that a party claiming damages for breach of contract has a duty to use ordinary care to mitigate damages resulting from the breach. The court particularized the rule in the following terms: If you believe from the evidence that [Fox], through its agents, knew or should have known that [Norris] had turned the flashing up only 1½ inches instead of 8 inches, and if you further believe that any of the damage allegedly resulting from the failure to turn the flashing up 8 inches could have been avoided had [Fox] or its agents used ordinary care to cause the flashing to be corrected before causing the buildings to be completed, and if you believe that [Fox] did not use ordinary care to bring about such corrections, then you may find for [Fox] on its counter-claim only in such amount as you believe from the evidence to have been the actual cost of correcting the flashing at the time the defect was or should have been discovered by [Fox]. In paraphrase, this instruction told the jury that, if Fox, through its agent Mitchell, knew or should have known that Norris had not complied with the flashing specifications, Fox had a duty to cause the flashing to be corrected before causing the buildings to be completed and that Fox should bear any loss flowing from its violation of such duty. We believe the instruction misstated the predicate for Fox's duty under the facts of this case. Fox's agent, Mitchell, questioned the sufficiency of the flashing. But, absent evidence that Mitchell knew or should have known that Norris's failure to turn the metal up higher would result in damage, Fox had no duty to mitigate. There was no such evidence. Indeed, Mr. Norris assured Mitchell that his workmanship was normal and the standard way of doing that and, thus, led him to believe there was no damage to mitigate. Norris had the burden of proving that Fox had a duty to mitigate damages and that he violated that duty. Foreman v. Caligari, Inc., 204 Va. 284, 290, 130 S.E.2d 447, 451 (1963). Norris did not carry its burden, the instruction constituted prejudicial error, and we will modify the verdict awarded Fox on its counterclaim. Since Fox's evidence of liquidated damages was documented and uncontroverted, we will enter final judgment for Fox in the sum of $2,757.81. Modified and final judgment.