Opinion ID: 1217413
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: murphy bros. cross-appeal

Text: The jury found respondents Murphy Bros. and Jacobson each 50% liable on Homeowners' claim of negligent paving design and construction. The district court, in entering judgment on the verdict, found Murphy Bros. and Jacobson to be jointly and severally liable on the $50,230 verdict. Murphy Bros.' motion to alter the judgment from joint and several liability to several liability was denied. The motion to alter the judgment, in addition to reducing Murphy Bros.' liability on the judgment, was also crucial to Murphy Bros.' motion for attorney's fees against Homeowners under Rule 68. Murphy Bros. made an offer of judgment for $30,000 to Homeowners in compliance with Rule 68. If Murphy Bros. is severally liable for one-half of $50,230, $25,115, Murphy Bros. might be entitled to attorney's fees pursuant to Rule 68; however, if Murphy Bros. is jointly and severally liable for $50,230, it cannot collect attorney's fees from Homeowners under Rule 68 because its offer was less than Homeowners' recovery. Homeowners maintain that Murphy Bros. and Jacobson acted in concert in negligently performing the paving contract. On the other hand, Murphy Bros. argues that it completed the project according to Jacobson's design and specifications, and that it and Jacobson cannot be found jointly liable because their tortious conduct was independent and separate of each other. See Blaisdell v. Stephens, 14 Nev. 17 (1879). However, because we do not have the trial transcript before us, we must assume the district court was correct in assigning liability between Jacobson and Murphy Bros. Bates v. Chronister, 100 Nev. 675, 677, 691 P.2d 865 (1984). Therefore, we presume that the district court was correct in denying Murphy Bros.' motions to alter the jury verdict and for attorney's fees pursuant to Rule 68. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court with the exception of the amount of attorney's fees awarded to Cavallero. We remand this issue to the trial court with instructions to evaluate the amount of attorney's fees to be awarded in light of the factors set out in this opinion.