{
  "id": 8526391,
  "name": "BURKE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS BOARD OF EDUCATION v. JUNO CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION and STATESVILLE ROOFING & HEATING COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Burke County Public Schools Board of Education v. Juno Construction Corp.",
  "decision_date": "1983-09-20",
  "docket_number": "No. 8225SC983",
  "first_page": "158",
  "last_page": "162",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "64 N.C. App. 158"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "282 S.E. 2d 778",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "304 N.C. 187",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8565611
      ],
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/304/0187-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "279 S.E. 2d 350",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "302 N.C. 396",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8565993,
        8565962,
        8566068,
        8566037,
        8566111
      ],
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/302/0396-02",
        "/nc/302/0396-01",
        "/nc/302/0396-04",
        "/nc/302/0396-03",
        "/nc/302/0396-05"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "273 S.E. 2d 504",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "50 N.C. App. 238",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        2676630
      ],
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/50/0238-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "111 S.E. 2d 884",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1960,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "251 N.C. 663",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8626919
      ],
      "year": 1960,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/251/0663-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "298 S.E. 2d 393",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "60 N.C. App. 165",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8519788
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/60/0165-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "251 S.E. 2d 407",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "296 N.C. 454",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8567620
      ],
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/296/0454-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "294 S.E. 2d 369",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "306 N.C. 555",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8571905,
        8571842,
        8571878,
        8571771,
        8571807
      ],
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/306/0555-05",
        "/nc/306/0555-03",
        "/nc/306/0555-04",
        "/nc/306/0555-01",
        "/nc/306/0555-02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "291 S.E. 2d 296",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "57 N.C. App. 282",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8523865
      ],
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/57/0282-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "299 S.E. 2d 809",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "60 N.C. App. 650",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8523352
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/60/0650-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 464,
    "char_count": 9399,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.793,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.6524399823682423e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8241770080031693
    },
    "sha256": "be3adb3577bd015acc0d92cbfdbfae7c8399630212819695f0d3cb149c354d5a",
    "simhash": "1:8f212c83551ea0f0",
    "word_count": 1505
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:03:16.623003+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Hedrick and Phillips concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "BURKE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS BOARD OF EDUCATION v. JUNO CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION and STATESVILLE ROOFING & HEATING COMPANY"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "WELLS, Judge.\nIn its first assignment of error, defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying its motion to amend the pleadings to allege unenforceability of the roof maintenance contract. This identical motion was made by defendant, and denied by the court in the initial trial of this case in 1979. The trial court\u2019s denial of the motion to amend was affirmed by this court in Board of Education v. Construction Corp., supra.\nWhere a question before an appellate court has previously been answered on an earlier appeal in the same case, the answer to the question given in the former appeal becomes \u201cthe law of the case\u201d for purposes of later appeals. La Grenade v. Gordon, 60 N.C. App. 650, 299 S.E. 2d 809 (1983); see also Complex, Inc. v. Furst and Furst v. Camilco, Inc. and Camilco, Inc. v. Furst, 57 N.C. App. 282, 291 S.E. 2d 296, disc. rev. denied, 306 N.C. 555, 294 S.E. 2d 369 (1982). This assignment is, therefore, overruled. In its present appeal, defendant advances another theory in support of its motion to amend, i.e., that its agreement with plaintiff was unenforceable as against public policy. Such additional arguments may not serve to change the law of this case on this point.\nDefendant also assigns as error the trial court\u2019s allowing plaintiffs expert witness Luther Pinkerton to estimate the amount of damages caused to plaintiff\u2019s roof as a result of defendant\u2019s failure to maintain the roof between August 1973 and August 1978, as required by the contract. Defendant raises four objections to Pinkerton\u2019s testimony. First, defendant argues Pinkerton had no firsthand knowledge of the condition of the roof before 1981, and was improperly permitted to base part of his estimates on testimony of Thomas Anderson, a roofing expert, who viewed the roof in 1977 and 1981.\nIt is well established that an expert witness need not have firsthand knowledge of all matters upon which he bases an opinion. He may, for instance, base an opinion upon previous testimony given in the same trial. McCormick, The Law of Evidence, \u00a7 14 (1972), 1 Brandis, North Carolina Evidence, \u00a7 136 (2d Rev. Ed. 1982), see also State v. Wade, 296 N.C. 454, 251 S.E. 2d 407 (1979).\nSecond, defendant argues that Anderson did not view all areas of the roof in 1977, and therefore could not accurately distinguish between damage existing in 1977, for which defendant was responsible, and damage occurring after August 1978, for which defendant was not liable. Although there was some evidence at trial that Anderson did not personally inspect every square foot of the roof in 1977, this is not sufficient to bar his testimony, nor to prevent Pinkerton from basing his cost estimates upon Anderson\u2019s testimony. Rather, defendant\u2019s objection goes to the weight and credibility of the evidence, a matter for the jury.\nThird, defendant contends Pinkerton failed to base his damage estimate on the cost required to make the roof conform to the original specifications. There is ample evidence in the record showing that Pinkerton did use the original specifications in his calculations; therefore, the trial judge did not err in permitting Pinkerton\u2019s testimony on this point.\nFinally, defendant objects that Pinkerton determined the amount of damage in 1977 dollars, by taking the actual cost of repairs made in 1981 and reducing that figure by 25 percent. Defendant argues the 25 percent figure is arbitrary and that the formula includes damages occurring between 1977 and 1981, for which defendant is not contractually liable.\nThe correct measure of damage in construction contract cases is the cost of repairing the structure to make it conform to contract specifications. Where substantial destruction of the structure is required to remedy the defects, however, the correct measure of damage is the value of the building as contracted for, minus the value of the building as actually constructed. LaGasse v. Gardner, 60 N.C. App. 165, 298 S.E. 2d 393 (1983); Robbins v. Trading Post, Inc., 251 N.C. 663, 111 S.E. 2d 884 (1960). There was no evidence at trial that repairing the roof would require substantial destruction of plaintiffs school. Therefore, cost of repair was the proper measure of damages, and plaintiffs evidence concerning the 1981 costs was relevant and admissible. This court is not aware, nor has defendant cited any cases which forbid determining costs of repairs in a past year, by discounting current costs to reflect earlier price levels and the effect of inflation on those levels. The accuracy of the method, as well as the question whether Pinkerton properly calculated the damages to omit defects arising after 1978, when defendant\u2019s liability ceased, again go to the weight and credibility of the testimony, rather than its admissibility. Defendant was free to cross-examine Pinkerton, to call expert witnesses of its own, and to argue credibility to the jury. Defendant\u2019s assignment of error is overruled.\nBecause there was admissible evidence on the issue of damages, and because the trial judge correctly denied defendant\u2019s motion to amend the pleadings, there was no error in the court\u2019s decision to deny summary judgment, deny defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss and to enter judgment on the verdict.\nNo error.\nJudges Hedrick and Phillips concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WELLS, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Simpson, Aycock, Beyer & Simpson, P.A., by Samuel E. Aycock, for plaintiff.",
      "Raymer, Lewis, Eisele, Patterson & Ashburn, by Douglas G. Eisele, for defendant Statesville Roofing & Heating Company."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "BURKE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS BOARD OF EDUCATION v. JUNO CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION and STATESVILLE ROOFING & HEATING COMPANY\nNo. 8225SC983\n(Filed 20 September 1983)\n1. Appeal and Error \u00a7 68.3\u2014 denial of motion to amend pleadings \u2014former decision \u2014 law of the case\nIn an action for breach of contract to maintain a school roof, the appellate court\u2019s decision in a prior appeal affirming the trial court\u2019s ruling denying defendant\u2019s motion to amend its pleadings to allege unenforceability of the maintenance contract became the \u201claw of the case\u201d on that issue.\n2. Evidence \u00a7 47\u2014 expert testimony based partly on testimony of another expert\nIn an action for breach of contract to maintain a school roof, plaintiffs expert witness could properly base part of his estimate of the amount of damages caused as a result of defendant\u2019s failure to maintain the roof between 1973 and 1978 on the previous testimony of another roofing expert who viewed the roof in 1977 and 1981.\n3. Conti acts \u00a7 29.2\u2014 breach of contract to maintain roof \u2014 measure of damages\nThe proper measure of damages for breach of a contract to maintain a school roof was the cost of repair, and plaintiffs expert witness could properly base his estimate of the cost of repair by taking the actual cost of repair in 1981 and reducing that figure to reflect price levels during the years for which defendant was liable.\nAPPEAL by defendant from Snepp, Judge. Judgment entered 28 April 1982 in BURKE County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 23 August 1983.\nThe current appeal marks the second time this case has been considered by this court. Plaintiff, Burke County Board of Education, contracted with the Shaver Partnership to design a roof for plaintiffs Freedom High School. Defendant Juno Construction Corporation was the general contractor and defendant States-ville Roofing & Heating Company was the subcontractor for the roofing job. In 1979, after leaks developed in the high school roof, plaintiff sued both defendants for faulty installation of the roof and for breach of their contracts. Plaintiff also sued defendant Statesville Roofing & Heating Company for an alleged violation of Statesville Roofing\u2019s contract to maintain the high school roof. At the initial trial, the trial court denied defendant Statesville Roofing\u2019s motion to amend its pleading to allege the unenforceability of the roof maintenance contract. The jury found that both Juno and Statesville Roofing breached their contracts with plaintiff. The jury found further, however, that defects in the roof were the result of defective roof design furnished to defendants by plaintiff, and no damages were awarded plaintiff.\nPlaintiff appealed to this court, which affirmed the judgment below as to Juno Construction, but found defendant Statesville Roofing liable on the roof maintenance contract. The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court\u2019s ruling denying Statesville Roofing\u2019s motion to amend the pleadings to allege unenforceability of the maintenance contract. We then remanded for determination of damages owing plaintiff by defendant Statesville Roofing. See Burke County Public Schools Board of Education v. Juno Construction Corporation and Statesville Roofing & Heating Company, 50 N.C. App. 238, 273 S.E. 2d 504 (1981). Our Supreme Court granted discretionary review, 302 N.C. 396, 279 S.E. 2d 350 (1981), but later dismissed the petition for review as improvidently granted, 304 N.C. 187, 282 S.E. 2d 778 (1981).\nOn remand in 1982, the trial court denied defendant\u2019s renewed motion to amend its pleadings to allege the unenforce-ability of the roof maintenance contract, and denied defendant\u2019s motions for summary judgment and directed verdict. The trial court also overruled defendant\u2019s objections to admission of expert testimony concerning the amount of damage to the Freedom High School roof. The jury determined damages at $100,000.00, and defendant appealed.\nSimpson, Aycock, Beyer & Simpson, P.A., by Samuel E. Aycock, for plaintiff.\nRaymer, Lewis, Eisele, Patterson & Ashburn, by Douglas G. Eisele, for defendant Statesville Roofing & Heating Company."
  },
  "file_name": "0158-01",
  "first_page_order": 190,
  "last_page_order": 194
}
