Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, a plaintiff was awarded $70,000 by a jury for property damage caused by a termite infestation, under a termite protection agreement with Orkin Exterminating Company, Inc. Orkin appealed, challenging the jury's decision, the awarded amount, and the trial court's refusal to grant a remittitur or new trial. The plaintiff had entered into a contract with Orkin in 1976, and discovered live termites in 1978, which Orkin initially disputed. Following further issues, another pest control service confirmed active infestations. The court upheld the jury's finding that the damage occurred post-Orkin's treatment, despite expert testimony discrepancies. The trial court reduced the award to $65,879, aligning with evidence-supported costs. Orkin's claims regarding excessive judgment and improper jury instructions were dismissed. The court emphasized the jury's role in factual determinations and found no abuse of discretion in the trial's proceedings or jury's decision. Costs of the appeal were divided, with three-fourths assigned to Orkin, and a typographical error in the judgment amount corrected post-rehearing.
Legal Issues Addressed
Contractual Responsibility and Termssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Orkin's liability under the termite protection agreement was limited to damage not existing at the time of contract signing, unless specified, and the presence of factors like moisture affecting liability.
Reasoning: ORKIN is not liable for damages in areas that were not accessible for inspection at the time of contract signing. If conditions favoring subterranean termites are discovered later, ORKIN is absolved of repair responsibilities.
Jury Instructions and Pre-trial Agreementssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The trial judge's refusal to give certain jury instructions requested by the defendant was justified, as the necessary points were covered by other instructions, and adherence to pre-trial agreements was maintained.
Reasoning: The trial judge found that the content of jury instruction number 4 was adequately addressed by the defendant's special instruction number 3, resulting in its proper exclusion from the jury charges.
Jury's Role in Factual Determinationssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court upheld the jury's decision, emphasizing the role of a jury in making factual determinations unless such findings are clearly erroneous.
Reasoning: The court upheld the jury's decision, stating that factual determinations are typically left to the jury unless clearly erroneous.
Mitigation of Damagessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The plaintiff was found to have made reasonable attempts to mitigate damages, contacting Orkin promptly and exploring additional extermination services, despite personal and financial limitations.
Reasoning: The jury's conclusion that the plaintiff made reasonable attempts to minimize damages is upheld.
Remittitur and Abuse of Discretionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's handling of remittitur and new trial motions, affirming the reduction of the jury's award to a reasonable amount supported by evidence.
Reasoning: The jury's award is a factual finding that can only be overturned if there is clear abuse of discretion.