Opinion ID: 1309966
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: was it proper to permit the witness to revise his figures?

Text: The trial court ruled that any damages that might be assessed should be computed with regard to the date that the building contract was substantially completed, June 12, 1975. Vallance was prepared to testify as to repair costs compiled in October of 1978 reflecting building costs that were prevailing at that time. In order to adjust his calculations to demonstrate repair costs in effect as of June 12, 1975, Vallance was permitted to withdraw from the courtroom and recompute his figures. In making these adjustments Vallance simply discounted all estimates by an average of nine percent per annum for the period June 12, 1975, to October, 1978. We must decide whether such a method of re-evaluation was proper under the circumstances. While the costs of any specific commodity or service does not normally rise or fall at a uniform or constant rate, Vallance's integration of a flat nine percent deflation factor is not without merit. His use of that figure was an interpretation and assessment of past economic inflation in the building and construction business and not a projection of cost increases. We can find no evidence to support the theory that the use of a nine percent discount rate was unreasonable or that building costs did not otherwise rise at that level. Vallance testified that this particular discounting procedure is widely used and has been utilized by him before. In Kerr v. Clinchfield Coal Corp., 169 Va. 149, 156, 192 S.E. 741, 743 (1937), we said: [T]he opinion may be based upon the value of the property at a previous, if not too remote, period. We have long been committed to the view that damages are not required to be proved with mathematical exactness. [2] The jury was so instructed in this case, that is, that an intelligent estimate or a reasonable basis of calculations is all that is required. [3] Vallance was subjected to vigorous cross-examination, and accordingly it was for the jury to give such weight and credibility to his testimony as they deemed justified. The method of recomputing the building repair costs estimates was therefore proper. For the foregoing reasons we are of opinion that the trial court committed no error, and the judgment of the lower court will be Affirmed.