Opinion ID: 2561825
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Whether the district court abused its discretion in instructing the jury as to Three Way's duty of workmanship?

Text: [¶23] We review jury instruction issues under the following standard: Jury instructions should inform the jurors concerning the applicable law so that they can apply that law to their findings with respect to the material facts, instructions should be written with the particular facts and legal theories of each case in mind and often differ from case to case since any one of several instructional options may be legally correct, . . . Wheaton v. State , 2003 WY 56, ¶ 20, 68 P.3d 1167, 1176 (Wyo. 2003). When examining the propriety of jury instructions, this Court reviews whether the instructions, taken as a whole, adequately and clearly advise the jury of the applicable law. The trial court is not obligated to give an instruction offered by a party as long as the jury is adequately instructed on the law as it pertains to that case. The trial court's ruling on an instruction will not constitute reversible error absent a showing of prejudice, and prejudice will not be said to result unless it is demonstrated that the instruction confused or misled the jury with respect to the proper principles of law. Sellers v. Dooley Oil Transport , 2001 WY 44, ¶ 9, 22 P.3d 307, 309 (Wyo. 2001); Cervelli v. Graves , 661 P.2d 1032, 1036 (Wyo. 1983). The burden is on the appellant to show prejudicial error. Daley v. Wenzel , 2001 WY 80, ¶ 29, 30 P.3d 547, 554-55 (Wyo. 2001). Parrish v. Groathouse Constr., Inc. , 2006 WY 33, ¶ 7, 130 P.3d 502, 505 (Wyo. 2006). [¶24] This issue was raised by Burton in its cross-appeal. As to the warranty of workmanship implied in any construction contract, the district court instructed the jury as follows: Construction contracts contain an implied warranty that work will be performed in a skillful, careful, diligent, and workmanlike manner. The district court refused to give the following instruction proposed by Burton in its place: Construction contracts contain an implied warranty that work will be performed in a skillful, careful, diligent, and workmanlike manner. The contract is not performed until the work accomplishes the agreed result. Where the principal object of the contract is to obtain a result, the builder is required to accomplish that purpose or result. This duty of workmanlike performance imposes a corollary duty to warn the owner of defects in a project which would be likely to cause the work to fail if the contractor knew or reasonably should have known of these defects. When a contractor knows or should know of a defect, he does not perform his obligations in a workmanlike manner if he fails to notify the owner of the condition. A contractor is not relieved of this duty to disclose even if the specifications themselves are defective. Rather, the contractor must warn the owner of the defective specification. It is only when the owner instructs the contractor to continue according to the defective plans that the contractor will be immune from liability. [¶25] Burton contends that the workmanship instruction given by the district court provided no guidance to the jury as to the applicability of this implied duty to the facts of this case. In particular, Burton alleges that, without being told about a contractor's duty to warn the owner about known defects in the plans or site conditions, the jury could not properly analyze the fact that, knowing early on in the project that the plans did not provide remediation for the groundwater problems, Three Way's president kept [his] mouth shut about the problem. [¶26] The first question that must be asked in deciding whether the jury should have been instructed as requested by Burton is whether the law supports the proposed instruction. We have said the following about the duty of building and construction contractors: Building and construction contracts contain a warranty either express or implied that the work will be sufficient for a certain purpose and will be performed in a skillful, careful, diligent, and workmanlike manner. Matheson Drilling, Inc. v. Padova, Inc. , 5 P.3d 810, 812 (Wyo. 2000); Arch Sellery, Inc. v. Simpson , 360 P.2d 911, 912 (Wyo. 1961). The contract is not performed until the work accomplishes the agreed result. Arch Sellery , 360 P.2d at 912; see also Kansas Turnpike Authority v. Abramson , 275 F.2d 711, 713 (10th Cir. 1960) (where the principal object of the contract is to obtain a result, the builder is required to accomplish that purpose or result). Alpine Climate Control, Inc. v. DJ's, Inc. , 2003 WY 138, ¶ 12, 78 P.3d 685, 689 (Wyo. 2003). Part of the duty of performing in a workmanlike manner is the duty to warn the owner of defects in the project which would be likely to cause the work to fail if the contractor [knows] or reasonably should [know] of those defects. Lewis v. Anchorage Asphalt Paving Co. , 579 P.2d 532, 533 (Alaska 1978); see also 41 Am. Jur. 2d Independent Contractors § 62 (2005). Two corollaries of this general rule have potential application to the case sub judice : (1) a contractor is not responsible for defects in the owner's plans and specification in the absence of some negligence on the contractor's part; and (2) the contractor has a duty to warn the owner of defects in subsurface conditions, where the contractor knows or should know of the defective conditions. Harris v. Williams , 679 So.2d 990, 993 (La. App. 1996); Parker v. Thornton , 596 So.2d 854, 858 (Miss. 1992); Lewis , 579 P.2d at 534; 13 Am. Jur. 2d Building and Construction Contracts §§ 30-31 (2000); Annotation, Duty of Contractor to Warn Owner of Defects in Subsurface Conditions , 73 A.L.R.3d 1213 (1976 and Supp. 2007); S. Bernstein, Annotation, Construction Contractor's Liability to Contractee for Defects or Insufficiency of Work Attributable to the Latter's Plans and Specifications , 6 A.L.R.3d 1394 (1966 and Supp. 2007). [¶27] Even if the proposed instruction was a correct statement of the law under the facts of this case, we must still determine whether Burton was prejudiced by the district court's refusal to give it. We conclude that Burton has not met its burden of proving that prejudice resulted. To begin with, the instruction that was given was not an incorrect statement of the law, and it was broad enough so as not to preclude Burton from presenting evidence, and arguing to the jury, that the duty of workmanship included the duty to warn as outlined above. See supra ¶¶ 23-26. Indeed, much of the trial was taken up by testimony about the two sides' knowledge of both the groundwater problem and the lack of any remediation in the plans. Furthermore, Burton's counsel conceded during oral argument that trial counsel was, indeed, able to contend during closing argument that the implied warranty of workmanship included the duty to warn. [4] Perhaps most importantly, a reading of the entire trial transcript reveals that neither defectthe groundwater problem and the lack of a remediation planwas known to Three Way but not known to Burton. In fact, the testimony suggests that the groundwater problem in the entire area was a patent defect, as opposed to some latent defect only discovered by Three Way upon beginning the project. For these reasons, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to instruct the jury as requested by Burton.