{
  "id": 3632738,
  "name": "JOHN BURNS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. INTERLAKE, INC., Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "John Burns Construction Co. v. Interlake, Inc.",
  "decision_date": "1984-06-19",
  "docket_number": "No. 83\u20141422",
  "first_page": "26",
  "last_page": "30",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "125 Ill. App. 3d 26"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "343 N.E.2d 673",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "678"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "36 Ill. App. 3d 170",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2631177
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "176-77"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/36/0170-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "427 N.E.2d 563",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "571"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "86 Ill. 2d. 291",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5468706
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "308"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/86/0291-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "405 N.E.2d 1220",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "1225"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "84 Ill. App. 3d 661",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3202428
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "666"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/84/0661-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "433 N.E.2d 1126",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "1132"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "105 Ill. App. 3d 19",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        5473447
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "28"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/105/0019-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 487,
    "char_count": 8661,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.751,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.82257097152767e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5333403607700681
    },
    "sha256": "c730a1f692310adc02159db1d6b27d576720c7b6b282e970876b1966395ceb2a",
    "simhash": "1:a5a87a90ecc5ef56",
    "word_count": 1380
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:49:19.537276+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "JOHN BURNS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. INTERLAKE, INC., Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE PER.LIN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nIn 1974 John Burns Construction Company (Burns) brought an action in the circuit court of Cook County against Interlake, Inc. (In-terlake), seeking additional payment for a sewer project which, pursuant to a written contract, Burns had constructed for Interlake in 1973. Interlake paid to Burns the stated contract price of $68,117, but Burns claimed an additional $149,000 to cover the cost of extra work resulting from unforeseeable problems encountered on the job. The trial court, on the basis of mutual mistake, rescinded the parties\u2019 written contract and, applying quantum meruit, entered judgment for Burns in the sum of $130,406.25. Interlake appealed, and this court affirmed the trial court\u2019s rescission of the contract but vacated the damage award of $130,406.25, finding that the award \u201cdid not take into account what amount of Burns\u2019 costs were attributable to Bums\u2019 own construction errors.\u201d This court remanded for a hearing \u201cto ascertain the value of Burns\u2019 work. The value of that work should not include the costs, if any, necessitated by Burns\u2019 own negligent acts or omissions.\u201d John Burns Construction Co. v. Interlake, Inc. (1982), 105 Ill. App. 3d 19, 28, 433 N.E.2d 1126, 1132.\nOn remand, the trial judge deleted what he concluded were the costs attributable to Burns\u2019 negligence and entered a $117,571.25 judgment in favor of Burns. Interlake again appeals, contending (1) that \u201cthe trial court erred in the nature of the hearing upon remand\u201d; (2) that the trial court \u201cwrongfully excluded evidence\u201d as to the value of Burns\u2019 work; and (3) that the trial court\u2019s \u201cstarting point\u201d of $130,406.25 for recomputing damages was unsupported by the evidence.\nOn remand, the judge advised the parties, \u201cI want you to be fully aware that I intend to really restrain or restrict this hearing pursuant to the Appellate Court mandate to a hearing in the area of the damage award of the Court less whatever would be attributable to Burns, either because of their own negligence in the two areas, the Valley Mould and Iron line area and in piercing an existing sewer line with one of its well points. It appears to me that\u2019s what the [Appellate] Court has delineated for our attention ***.\u201d\nInterlake\u2019s counsel argued that the hearing would not be \u201climited just to the consideration of the value caused by those problems due to Bums\u2019 negligence, *'** but that the [Appellate] Court has remanded this case for a determination of the value of Burns\u2019 work.\u201d Interlake contended that the hearing should consider the \u201ctotal evidentiary value of their [Burns] work.\u201d\nThe trial court disagreed, stating that it was \u201cnot going to allow a general calculation of an overall worth of John Burns\u2019 work ***.\u201d The trial judge noted that he had already considered the initial evidence of Burns\u2019 costs in arriving at his original conclusion with regard to damages.\nRichard L. Thompson, executive vice-president and secretary of Burns during the instant sewer project, testified: he computed Burns\u2019 costs in the Interlake sewer project to be $217,667.82. The costs attributable to the Valley Mould and Iron line rupture allegedly caused by Armco, Burns\u2019 subcontractor, amounted to $3,434.62, and the cost to repair the piercing of the existing sewer line caused by More-trench, also Burns\u2019 subcontractor, amounted to $1,063.42. These costs covered labor, equipment and subcontractor bills received by Burns from its subcontractors.\nJames Bitner, plant engineer for Interlake, testified: he was responsible for overseeing \u201cthe contractors\u2019 performance of installing a new sanitary sewer at the furnace plant.\u201d The ruptured sewer line was \u201cplugged\u201d in a day and a half. With regard to the piercing of the existing sewer line, Bitner explained that following this incident the dewatering system was incapable of removing all of the escaping water and required enlarging. He further testified that it cost $900 to rebuild \u201cmanhole #2\u201d and $8,500 to install the necessary dewatering system.\nGeorge Berry, business; administrator for Moretrench American Corporation, Bums\u2019 dewatering subcontractor, testified: Moretrench prepares service reports that are kept in \u201cthe normal course of [the] company\u2019s business.\u201d\nWhen Interlake\u2019s counsel attempted to introduce into evidence the Moretrench service reports to establish the negligence of Burns, the trial court sustained Burns\u2019 objection to the admission of these reports as irrelevant.\nAt the conclusion of the hearing, the trial judge noted that in his opinion the appellate court did not \u201cquarrel\u201d with his original damage award but rather with his inclusion in such award of an amount attributable to Burns\u2019 own negligence. The court recalculated the amount of damages, accepting Burns\u2019 figure of $3,434.62 as its responsibility, together with $8,500 for constructing the second dewa-tering system and $900 for rebuilding \u201cmanhole #2.\u201d Subtracting these items from the original award, the trial court entered judgment in the sum of $117,571.63.\nInterlake contends that the prior decision of this court \u201cinstructed\u201d the trial court on remand \u201cto conduct a hearing to ascertain the value of Burns\u2019 work\u201d under the principle of quantum me-ruit; that all evidence of value is relevant; and that the trial court\u2019s \u201cstarting point\u201d of $130,406.25 in recomputing damages was not supported by the evidence.\nOur original opinion stated in relevant part, \u201cWe believe that the award of damages must be vacated and the cause remanded for a hearing to ascertain the value of Bums\u2019 work. The value of that work should not include the costs, if any, necessitated by Burns\u2019 own negligent acts or omissions. *** [We] remand the cause for a hearing on damages not inconsistent with the views expressed herein.\u201d\nThe trial judge maintained that the appellate court mandate required only that he determine the damages attributable to the negligence of Burns and remove such damages from the award.\nIt is generally held that \u201cwhere a reviewing court remands a cause with specific directions, they must be followed exactly [citations]; but, if specific directions are not given, the trial court is required to examine the appellate court\u2019s opinion and determine therefrom what further proceedings would be proper and consistent with the opinion.\u201d (Zokoych v. Spalding (1980), 84 Ill. App. 3d 661, 666, 405 N.E.2d 1220, 1225.) Where, as in the instant case, \u201cthe direction is to proceed in conformity with the opinion, then, of course, the content of the opinion is significant. [Citations.] In construing the language, matters which are implied may be considered embraced by the mandate.\u201d PSL Realty Co. v. Granite Investment Co. (1981), 86 Ill. 2d. 291, 308, 427 N.E.2d 563, 571.\nOur review of this record reflects that the trial court here limited the admission of evidence to the \u201ccosts\u201d attributable to Burns\u2019 errors with regard to the Valley Mould and Iron line rupture and the piercing of the existing sewer line. These were the two specific areas of Burns\u2019 negligence to which reference was made in the original appeal of this case. Pursuant to our views expressed in the first appeal, the trial court here ascertained and deducted from the award of $130,406.25 the costs attributable to Bums\u2019 errors.\nThe amount of an award is \u201cpurely a factual issue which it [is] the duty of the *** trial judge to determine. *** This court may not set aside factual results reached by the trial court except when those results are manifestly contrary to the weight of the evidence.\u201d Anderson v. Gewecke (1976), 36 Ill. App. 3d 170, 176-77, 343 N.E.2d 673, 678.\nIn the case sub judice , the trial court had ample opportunity to determine and to assess the damages suffered by plaintiff. In the initial trial, itemized statements of all Bums\u2019 costs were admitted into evidence. On remand, the trial court determined which costs were attributable to Bums\u2019 own negligence and thereupon removed them from the award.\nIn our opinion, the hearing on remand was conducted consistent with the views expressed in our prior decision.\nFor the reasons stated herein, we affirm the trial court\u2019s $117,571.25 judgment.\nAffirmed.\nSTAMOS and DOWNING, JJ., concur.\nInterlake at times refers to this figure as the \u201cbaseline.\u201d",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE PER.LIN"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Wildman, Harr old, Allen & Dixon, of Chicago (Thomas D. Allen and Robert E. Kehoe, Jr., of counsel), for appellant.",
      "Pope, Ballard, Shepard, & Fowle, Ltd., of Chicago (Thomas J. Regan and Mark T. Dunn, of counsel), for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JOHN BURNS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. INTERLAKE, INC., Defendant-Appellant.\nFirst District (2nd Division)\nNo. 83\u20141422\nOpinion filed June 19, 1984.\nWildman, Harr old, Allen & Dixon, of Chicago (Thomas D. Allen and Robert E. Kehoe, Jr., of counsel), for appellant.\nPope, Ballard, Shepard, & Fowle, Ltd., of Chicago (Thomas J. Regan and Mark T. Dunn, of counsel), for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0026-01",
  "first_page_order": 48,
  "last_page_order": 52
}