Court Opinion

ID: 9623335
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 06:31:27.869065+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:20.841713
License: Public Domain

SUTIN, Judge (specially concurring). I concur. This opinion will supplement the opinion of Judge Hernandez. On May 11, 1978, Moss and Turner entered into a verbal agreement wherein Turner agreed to build a high chain-link fence atop an existing board fence around a part of the Moss Drive-In Theater. To effect this agreement, Turner executed a Bill of Sale form with Moss as the purchaser which stated the amount of the contract price and the materials to be installed. Although the form referred to Moss as the purchaser and Turner as seller, it was, in fact, a part of the contract by Turner to build a chain-link fence for Moss, and it was so recognized by the parties. The purpose of the fence was to obstruct the view of the drive-in theater screen from persons on the highway. Prior to the agreement, Moss made an investigation. He learned that a telephone pole-tin type fence was much stronger in wind resistance, but the expense of erecting such a fence was so great, Moss decided to have a chain-link fence. Moss and Turner knew of the wind factor. It was discussed from time to time. In fact, Moss was a pilot and a good judge of wind. Moss testified that Turner gave no written guaranty. In the “stipulation,” however, Turner said, “he would not guarantee it (the fence) against a twister.” The fence could withstand a wind velocity of 51.5 mph. Turner completed work on July 20, 1978. The following afternoon, on July 21, 1978, the wind blew so hard, it damaged use of the fence. Moss testified that “95% of the fence was good.” Rather than pay the balance due on the purchase price, Moss sued Turner for damages for breach of contract and Turner counterclaimed. The jury found against Moss on his complaint and in favor of Turner on his counterclaim. Moss appealed. I would also affirm. Moss raised two points in this appeal: (1) Moss was entitled to a directed verdict and judgment N.O.V. on the issue of Turner’s negligence as a matter of ¡aw. (2) The court failed to instruct as to Turner’s breach of implied warranty of skill and workmanship. A. Moss was not entitled to a directed verdict or judgment N.O.V. An expert witness for plaintiff and one for defendant testified that defendant violated the Uniform Building Code. However, the opinion of an expert witness, although uncontradicted, is not conclusive of the fact in issue. This is made evident by U.J.I. 15.1 on Expert Testimony which was submitted to the jury. The fact finder may reject expert opinion evidence in whole or in part. It is left to the jury to decide. Lopez v. Heesen, 69 N.M. 206, 365 P.2d 448 (1961); Van Orman v. Nelson, 78 N.M. 11, 427 P.2d 896 (1967); Lucero v. Los Alamos Constructors, Inc., 79 N.M. 789, 450 P.2d 198 (Ct.App.1969); State v. Smith, 80 N.M. 126, 452 P.2d 195 (Ct.App.1969). An expert opinion is intended to aid the jury. In the instant case, it did not insofar as a violation of the Code was concerned. Plaintiff was protected by the court’s instruction to the jury that a violation of the Code was negligence per se. Plaintiff was not entitled to more. A detailed recitation of the testimony is unnecessary. Neither is a philosophical approach necessary to explain the reasons for the rule. This, of course, is not intended to disparage the use of expert testimony in exceedingly complex issues such as the effect of wind velocity on a large fence. Even the explanations attempted by the engineers were probably unclear to the jurors as they were to me. Even though defendant may have been negligent, proximate cause of the damage to the fence was an issue of fact. The jury could well believe that the damage was caused solely by an unusual and extraordinary strong wind and not from any defect in the fence. Innumerable opinions have stated that a court of review does not sit as a jury in the determination of factual issues. Plaintiff relies on Owen v. Burn Const. Co., 90 N.M. 297, 563 P.2d 91 (1977) in which the Court of Appeals was reversed and a directed verdict for plaintiff held proper. Although not stated in the opinion, nor publication of the Court of Appeals opinion ordered, I dissented in favor of plaintiff. Owen correctly stated the law but it should be exercised with caution. For the meaning of “reasonable minds” that cannot differ to justify a directed verdict see, Anderson v. Welsh, 86 N.M. 767, 527 P.2d 1079 (Ct.App.1974). We cannot say in the instant case that evidence of negligence and proximate cause as issues of fact are so undisputed as to become questions of law. Plaintiff was not entitled to a directed verdict or judgment N.O.V. B. Plaintiff was not entitled to implied warranty instructions. Plaintiff claims the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on its requested instruction Nos. 17, 18 and 19 as to defendant’s breach of implied warranty of skill and workmanship. These requested instructions read: (17) Where a person is employed in work of skill, the employer buys both his labor and his judgment; he ought not to undertake the work if he cannot succeed, and he should know whether it will or not. Andriola v. Milligan, 52 N.M. 65 [191 P.2d 716]. (18) The court further instructs you that the Defendant impliedly warranted that he would exercise such reasonable degree of skill as the nature of the services required. Garcia v. Color Tile Distributing Company, 75 N.M. 570, 408 P.2d 145 (1965); Andriola v. Milligan, 52 N.M. 65, 191 P.2d 716 (1948). (19) If you find that the fence constructed by Defendant was not fit for the uses and purposes for which it was purchased and that such fence failed to remain erect, it is defective in its construction and your verdict should be for the Plaintiff. J. B. Colt Co. v. Chavez et al., 34 N.M. 409 [282 P. 381]. The trial court was inclined to give No. 18, supra, but when defendant stated: I think that the instructions under the Uniform Building Code that that would be prejudicial to the defendant. The court said: I’m going to leave them all out. When requested instructions are proper and the court refuses to give them, the failure of the court to explain why they were not given constitutes reversible error. Clinard v. Southern Pacific Company, 82 N.M. 55, 475 P.2d 321 (1970); see Archibeque v. Homrich, 87 N.M. 265, 270, 531 P.2d 1238 (Ct.App.1975), certification to Supreme Court, Sutin, J. It would have been helpful in this appeal if the court had explained its refusal to give the requested instructions. Was Moss entitled to instructions on implied warranty? When we view the meaning of an implied warranty and its relationship to the issues in the case, the court did instruct the jury on the “implied” warranties requested. An implied warranty is not one of the contractual elements stated in an agreement. It arises independently and outside of the contract. The law, however, annexes it to the contract. By implication, the law writes an implied warranty into the contract which the parties made. Tharp v. Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co., 42 N.M. 443, 81 P.2d 703 (1938). When a person contracts to perform work or render a service, without an express warranty, the law implies that a contractor who undertakes to design and install a product must do so in a good and workmanlike manner and in a manner benefiting a skilled contractor. Reliable Elec. Co. v. Clinton Campbell Contractor, Inc., 10 Ariz.App. 371, 459 P.2d 98 (1969); Clear v. Patterson, 80 N.M. 654, 459 P.2d 358 (1969); Gilley v. Farmer, 207 Kan. 536, 485 P.2d 1284 (1971). When an implied warranty is written into the agreement of the parties, it constitutes a provision in the contract made by the parties. In effect, it then becomes an express warranty as though it had been included in the written contract or agreed upon orally by the parties. Moss requested and the court adopted Moss’ Requested Instruction No. 1. It reads in pertinent part: The Plaintiff claims that it sustained damages and that the proximate cause thereof was one or more of the following claimed acts: ****** 3. Breach of contract in that Defendant failed to construct said fence in a skillful and workmanlike manner. 4. Breach of contract in that defendant represented to Plaintiff that he had sufficient knowledge and expertise to properly design and construct said fence, but said fence failed as a result of its improper design and construction. These instructions are “implied” warranties. When written into the agreement of the parties, they became express warranties. Plaintiff was not entitled to the “implied” warranty instructions tendered. The parties can also contract against implied warranties. Tharp, supra. In the instant case, a fear existed that the. chain-link fence might not serve its purpose, solely due to the velocity of the wind. As a result, both parties agreed that Turner would not guarantee the fence against a twister, a “dust devil.” For the meaning of “dust devil,” see Pavlos v. Albuquerque National Bank, 82 N.M. 759, 487 P.2d 187 (Ct.App.1971), 56 A.L.R.3d 558 (1974), Sutin,- J., dissenting. A “dust devil” is a product of hot and dry desert country and is a matter of common knowledge in the southwest. In its popular sense, it is a windstorm, distinguished by its concentrated force and violence, so resistless as to make it especially destructive in its narrow pathway. A guaranty, like a warranty is collateral to, and made independently of, the principal contract which is guaranteed. Commonwealth Cotton Oil Co. v. Lester, 156 Okl. 93, 9 P.2d 738 (1932); Trego WaKenney State Bank v. Maier, 214 Kan. 169, 519 P.2d 743 (1974); 38 C.J.S. Guaranty § 2 (1943). “Warranty” and “guaranty” are undertakings by one party to indemnify another party against some possible default or defect and may be used interchangeably. Commonwealth Cotton Oil Co., supra; Gay Oil Co. v. Roach, 93 Ark. 454, 125 S.W. 122, 137 Am.St.R. 95, 27 L.R.A.(N.S.) 914 (1910); Tate-Jones & Co. v. Union Electric Steel Co., 281 Pa. 448, 126 A. 813 (1924); Saranac Automatic Mach. Corporation v. Duke, 67 F.2d 436 (5th Cir. 1933). Moss and Turner contracted against any warranty, express or implied, if the damage to the fence was caused by a “twister.” The parties dealt at arm’s length. It was Moss, not Turner, who wanted the chain-link fence. It was Moss, not Turner, who, with knowledge of the wind factors, gambled the violent action and destructive force of the wind. Moss agreed to assume the risk. Under these circumstances there is no room for the application of the doctrine of implied warranties against Turner. Glass v. Wiesner, 172 Kan. 133, 238 P.2d 712 (1951). An implied warranty, as to the reasonable degree of skill necessary as the nature of the service requires, would arise if and when Turner would represent to Moss that the chain-link fence would withstand- or resist the pressure of an unusual and extraordinary wind. Garcia v. Color Tile Distributing Company, 75 N.M. 570, 408 P.2d 145 (1965). Turner made no representations. Regardless of the skill used by Turner or the design of the fence, Moss contracted that Turner was free of liability for damage done by a “twister.” In this light, Moss waived any implied warranties with reference to skill, design or purpose. None of these implied warranties, even if applicable, had any effect upon the cause of the damage. These were issues submitted to the jury. The jury found for Turner. We do know that Turner did not breach the contract. He conformed with the Uniform Building Code and built the fence in a skillful and workmanlike manner. The fence did not fail as a result of any improper design and construction. Persons who contract to have extensive, unusual fences built for them, do not, as do purchasers of fences already built, first arrive upon the scene when there is a completed fence. On the contrary, they can, and often do, watch the construction from inception before defects are covered over beyond discovery. Many persons would have insufficient knowledge to protect themselves under such circumstances. Nevertheless, they do have the opportunity to inspect, or to arrange for expert inspection by engineers at all stages of construction. They do not have to await trial to produce expert testimony. Generally, persons like Turner are not placed in a position of impliedly guaranteeing or warranting the design of a chain-link fence or its suitability for a particular purpose in a dangerous wind area unless he undertook this obligation by express agreement. Turner refused to accept this responsibility. Turner’s responsibility was not one implied by law merely from the act of building a chain-link fence which Moss had selected, and which Moss agreed would exempt Turner from liability for damage done by wind velocity. Breach of contract provided an adequate remedy and Moss lost. This philosophical, judicial approach was exemplified in Chandler v. Bunick, 279 Or. 353, 569 P.2d 1037 (1977). The New Mexico cases, supra, relied on by Moss, properly wrote implied warranties into the agreement of the parties. But none of these cases involved the problems that are prominent in this case. I would affirm the judgment.