Court Opinion

ID: 9602057
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:51:27.329341+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:00.421273
License: Public Domain

Bell, Chief Judge.
Plaintiff brought suit alleging that she had performed services for the defendant corporation since 1964 and that the value of the services amounted to $100,000. Defendants’ motion for a directed verdict was denied. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff for $8,000. Defendants’ motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was also overruled. Held:
One ground asserted on the motion for directed verdict was the failure of plaintiff to prove the reasonable value of services rendered to and accepted by the defendants, an element essential to recovery on a quantum meruit basis. Code § 3-107. This ground has *278merit as plaintiff failed to carry her burden. Plaintiff testified that she had worked for these defendants under an express contract as a real estate salesman and that she had been paid her commissions earned under the terms of the contract. However, she testified that she had not been paid all the commissions due her; and "according to my figures they owe me $8,000.00”; that she included this figure in the total amount claimed in her suit, $100,000; that the balance of her work consisted of "trying to straighten out problems” for people she had sold lots to and trying to keep peace and harmony in the community; that based on her computation she had worked 21,480 hours for the defendants over a seven year period for which she had not been paid; and "I think [the value of the services] it’s worth a hundred thousand dollars.” All of this testimony presents no evidence by which the jury with any degree of certainty could determine the reasonable value of plaintiffs services as a whole. Please note that the cited testimony is all that is even remotely dealing with proof of value of services. Plaintiff offered nothing as to how either the $8,000 or $100,000 figure was computed. See Woodruff v. Trost, 73 Ga. App. 608 (37 SE2d 425). The question of damages cannot be left to speculation, conjecture and guesswork. Studebaker Corporation v. Nail, 82 Ga. App. 779 (62 SE2d 198); Bennett v. Assoc. Food Stores, Inc., 118 Ga. App. 711, 716 (165 SE2d 581).
Argued October 2, 1973
Decided February 26, 1974
Rehearing denied March 14, 1974
Arnall, Golden & Gregory, William R. Harp, Allen I. Hirsch, for appellants.
Herbert T. Jenkins, Jr., Fred W. Minter, for appellee.
It was error to deny the motions for directed verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The judgment is reversed with direction to enter a judgment for defendants.

Judgment reversed with direction.

Hall, P. J., Eberhardt, P. J., Quillian, Clark and Stolz, JJ., concur. Pannell, Deen and Evans, JJ., dissent.