Opinion ID: 1767590
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Boling's Liability

Text: Essex argues the trial court erred in failing to enter judgment in favor of Essex and against Boling on Essex's third-party claim. It contends Boling was responsible for any failing concrete streets that it constructed, because Boling's vehicles drove on the subgrade prior to construction of the streets. Essex argues, therefore, that it should have prevailed on its claim for full indemnity from Boling. The trial court does not specify why exactly Essex is not entitled to indemnity on the full amount of the judgment. Indeed, some of the language in the trial court's findings seems quite damning to Boling's defense against indemnity. The trial court states that there is no evidence of any negligence or failure of Essex to properly perform construction of the streets. In its brief, Boling points this Court to the provision of its contract with Essex that states that Boling is to have access road along one (1) side of new pavement area to allow for equipment/materials to be transported. Failure to provide the necessary access road will require loaded Ready Mix trucks and equipment to drive on finished subgrade releasing Boling Concrete of all liability and making the Developer liable for the following: A. Pumping Sub Grade. B. Possible thin pavement and or C. Over pour of the required concrete thickness resulting in a back charge of extra material to the Developer. Boling cites this provision as the reason it should not be held liable for any failure in subgrade support caused by its trucks driving over the initially compacted subgrade. Essex alleges that there were access roads available and, therefore, that this contractual provision does not relieve Boling of liability for the street failures. The trial court agreed, finding that it disagree[d] with Boling's contention that the access roads were not available. The trial court stated that the testimony of all witnesses, except Randy Boling, was that there were access roads to all lots for constructing the subdivision streets. This finding is inconsistent with the trial court's refusal to assign greater liability to Boling for the full judgment. If it is the case that thin concrete and poor subgrade support caused the streets to fail, as the trial court concluded, and Boling was responsible for some of the thin concrete and the uneven subgrade, then the trial court should have sustained Essex's claim for indemnity. The trial court's judgment awarding Essex less than full indemnity against Boling is reversed, and the case is remanded. On remand, the trial court can evaluate Essex's claim for indemnity against Boling.
Boling argues that it should not have been assessed $73,913.28 in penalties for the thin core streets it laid. To support that argument, Boling makes three contentions: 1) the Appendix E ordinance requiring replacement of streets thin by more than 0.3 inches was enacted after it laid the pavement; 2) the trial court lacked substantial evidence that the thin cores caused any damage to the streets; and 3) the trial court lacked substantial evidence that Boling, rather than another company called S & D, laid the concrete later found to be too thin. As to argument (2), the impact of the thin street cores has no pertinence to the assignment of civil penalties. The subdivision regulations mandate a certain thickness, and the trial court found that several slabs failed to meet the requirement and had to be replaced, pursuant to the regulations. A measure of damages is not required to assign the penalty. Boling's argument (1) also fails. Boling argues that although it contracted to pour streets of a specified thickness, the scale of penalties for thin concrete spelled out in Appendix E of the subdivision regulations should not apply. Appendix E was adopted in 2002, after the streets had been poured. The evidence at trial showed that at the time the streets were poured, prior to the adoption of Appendix E, Jefferson County used only an informal system requiring the removal of pavement that deviated by more than 0.3 of an inch from the required thickness. Boling argues that to use Appendix E's replacement requirement to calculate the penalty for the thin concrete violates Missouri's prohibition on the retrospective application of the laws. See Mo. Const. art. I, § 13. As the trial court pointed out, however, the remedies provided are not a change in substantive law, but rather provide a new remedy. Substantive laws fix and declare primary rights and remedies of individuals concerning their person or property, while remedial statutes affect only the remedy provided, including laws that substitute a new or more appropriate remedy for the enforcement of an existing right. Faulkner v. St. Luke's Hosp., 903 S.W.2d 588, 592 (Mo.App.1995). Missouri courts have interpreted statutes that affect a measure of damages as remedial. Files v. Wetterau, Inc. 998 S.W.2d 95, 97-98 (Mo.App. 1999). There is no constitutional prohibition on the retrospective application of a new remedy. The damages provisions spelled out in Appendix E do not constitute substantive laws and may be applied in assessing penalties to Boling. Finally, Boling disputes in its argument (3) the trial court's finding that it was responsible for the streets that were too thin. After Essex developed concerns about the thinness of some of the streets, Essex hired a company called S & D to replace some of the concrete, a total of 566 square yards. Boling argues that Essex failed to provide any evidence that Boling, rather than S & D, poured the streets that were found to be too thin in the 2005 court-ordered core testing. Essex, as the plaintiff in its third-party claim against Boling for liability for the thin streets, had the burden of proving the existence and amount of damages within a reasonable certainty. Once that burden was met, and Essex had made out a prima facie case, the burden of proof shifted to Boling. See Le Page v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 314 S.W.2d 735, 738 (Mo.1958) (There is a general rule to the effect that where plaintiff makes out a prima facie case the burden of the evidence shifts to the defendant...). Essex presented evidence that Boling poured two-thirds of the streets in the subdivision, and the judgment of the trial court reflected the replacement costs of those streets Boling was assigned to pour. Boling failed to provide any evidence that it had not poured the damaged streets. Because the penalty scheme described in Appendix E is a constitutionally permissible measure of damages and because Essex met its burden of proof, the trial court's judgment assigning $73,913.28 in civil penalties to Boling is affirmed. Berra makes an identical argument to that Boling put forward regarding the lack of evidence supporting the civil penalties. For the same reasons as for Boling, the trial court's judgment in assigning civil penalties to Berra is affirmed.
The trial court did not err in assigning testing fees to Boling and Berra. Boling and Berra both point to a provision in each company's contract with Essex that states, All required testing and inspection fees, are to be paid for by the Developer or Owner. That language pertains to Essex's requirements of Boling and Berra. Boling and Berra each contracted to pour streets to a certain thickness. Neither party successfully did so. The contractual provision assumes that Essex is requesting testing and provides that Essex shall pay for any testing it seeks. The testing for which Boling and Berra were assigned the cost did not arise pursuant to the contracts between Boling, Berra and Essex. The testing fees are for the 2005 core tests the trial court ordered after Boling and Berra failed to meet the contractual obligation, exposing Essex to liability. Because the testing fees do not arise out of the contracts, the judgment of the trial court in assigning testing fees to Boling and Berra is affirmed.