Southland Enter., Inc. v. Newton County


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2001-CA-00838-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 02-20-2003
Opinion Author: Diaz, J.
Holding: Affirmed in Part; Reversed and Remanded in Part.

Additional Case Information: Topic: Contract - Jury instruction - Statutory interest - Attorneys’ fees
Judge(s) Concurring: Pittman, C.J., McRae, P.J., Easley and Graves, JJ.
Dissenting Author : Smith, P.J. P.J.,
Dissent Joined By : Waller, Cobb and Carlson, JJ.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CONTRACT

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 12-07-2000
Appealed from: Newton County Circuit Court
Judge: Vernon Cotten
Disposition: The jury returned a verdict in favor of Southland in the amount of $21,697.24. Final judgment was entered on that verdict, and the trial court denied Southland's motion to amend the final judgment to include statutory interest and attorney's fees.
Case Number: 00-CV-047-NW

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Southland Enterprises, Inc.




G. MARTIN WARREN, JR. CHRISTIAN BLUE WADDELL



 

Appellee: Newton County, Mississippi DANNY K. CLEARMAN  

Synopsis provided by:

If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals
hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office.

Topic: Contract - Jury instruction - Statutory interest - Attorneys’ fees

Summary of the Facts: Southland Enterprises, Inc. sued Newton County, demanding payment of $84,800.98 for work it performed on the Chunky-Duffee Road and requesting statutory interest and reasonable attorney's fees. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Southland in the amount of $21,697.24, and judgment was entered for that amount. Southland appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Instruction Southland argues that when a construction contractor follows plans and specifications furnished by the owner which then prove to be defective or insufficient, it is not responsible to the owner for the loss of damage that results from the defective or insufficient plans or specifications when the contractor has not been negligent or provided any express warranty, and that the court erred in refusing an instruction to that effect. The jury in this case was left to decide between two theories: (1) whether the County or Southland was at fault for allowing the road work to be performed during cold winter months; and (2) the probability of whether Southland used defective materials that could have contributed to the failure of rock to adhere to the road. If the jury awarded the amount to Southland entirely on the basis of the probability that Southland used defective materials, then the jury's verdict was in accordance with the law. If, however, the jury considered Southland even partially responsible for performing the work when the temperature was too low, then the jury's verdict was in error according to the law. Without the instruction as requested by Southland, there is a possibility that the jury might have considered Southland to be partly at fault for performing the road work at a time prohibited by the State Aid Specifications. Issue 2: Statutory interest and attorneys’ fees Southland argues that because the leveling work was not in dispute, the court should have amended the final judgment to include interest in the amount of 1 ½ percent a month from February 5, 2000, 45 days after the invoice was submitted, until the time payment was made on the Final Judgment, December 17, 2000. A suit based on quantum merit precludes recovery of prejudgment interest and attorney fees. Because Southland was awarded an amount in quantum merit, the County is not liable for statutory interest or attorney's fees.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court