Bilt Rite of Augusta, Inc. v. Gardner

Citations: 472 S.E.2d 709; 221 Ga. App. 817; 96 Fulton County D. Rep. 2554; 1996 Ga. App. LEXIS 669Docket: A96A0540

Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia; June 21, 1996; Georgia; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

James and Inez Gardner sued Bilt Rite of Augusta, Inc. for negligence and breach of warranty regarding the installation of a polyurethane foam roof. Evidence presented at trial indicated that the foam thickness was below the manufacturer's specified minimum of one inch, with some areas measuring less than half an inch. An expert roofer testified to water damage beneath the roof, supporting claims of negligence. Bilt Rite appealed the jury's verdict in favor of the Gardners, arguing they were entitled to judgment notwithstanding the verdict (j.n.o.v.) due to a lack of expert evidence establishing the standard of care needed to evaluate Bilt Rite's actions.

In cases of negligent construction, plaintiffs generally must provide expert testimony to establish the standard of care applicable to the defendant, as juries cannot assess professional conduct without such evidence. However, in some instances, evidence of negligence may be sufficiently clear that a jury can understand it without expert input. A builder is required to meet a standard of care consistent with other contractors in similar situations, typically established through expert testimony. Nonetheless, if a defendant acknowledges that they failed to perform a necessary act, and if causation is established, the case might be considered a clear instance of negligence, negating the need for expert testimony.

Evidence can demonstrate a known or knowable defect without requiring expert testimony on professional standards, provided the evidence is clear and palpable to the jury. It is not always necessary to establish expert-defined parameters of acceptable conduct to prove negligence or breach of contract for inadequate work. In this case, the Gardners did not present expert evidence regarding a standard of care for polyurethane foam roofing. The critical question was whether the evidence was sufficient to establish a case of professional or ordinary negligence without expert input. 

The evidence indicated that the manufacturer specified a minimum foam thickness of one inch, ideally one-and-a-half inches or more, and warned against applying foam over loose gravel. This specification served as a clear standard of care against which Bilt Rite's work was measured. Bilt Rite did not dispute that different polyurethane roofing foams vary in quality and application methods. While it is possible to argue that a manufacturer's specifications might be inadequate or excessive compared to industry standards, those specifications still constitute relevant evidence in negligence cases involving the use of the manufacturer's materials.

The failure of Bilt Rite to adhere to the manufacturer's specifications was linked directly to the roof's leaks, and the jury could reasonably diagnose this issue without needing expert testimony. Requiring additional expert evidence in this context would unnecessarily broaden the expert testimony requirement in professional malpractice cases. Previous cases support the conclusion that the jury had sufficient evidence to determine Bilt Rite's negligence in applying the roofing material. Consequently, the trial court's denial of Bilt Rite's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was affirmed.