ÿWPC …# VU:a %› 0(¡w@É4  , B4 v 0J~ 0TÈ 0^ 0hz 0râ 0|T 0†Ð 0V 1uæ 0d[ U*¿ B)é DC AMUÙ¢ B{v~˜vÓ D3é 0@ AO\Æ« 0Dq D/µ Bä˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 ,†r‰AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡ ¤¥¦§{¨©Eª«Ó€·¸z!3|x¸C:\WPWIN60\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ÏÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌò òSeptember€18,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó dPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€×ÎXXdædÈ7Ñ›à@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌÌÌBRUCE€ANTHONY€BRITT€and€wife,à à)ÌLAURIE€ANN€BRITT,à àà àà à)€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óPlaintiffs/Appellees,à àò ò)€€Weakley€Chancery€No.€13315Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€Appeal€No.€02A01„9509„CH„00196Ìœ›à àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌHOWARD€JUNIOR€LEGENS€and€son,à à)ÌÙ€€ÙœßL€#$";+'h|›—` Å `€€Lß›WILLIAM€H.€LEGENS,€d/b/aà àà à)ÌLEGENS€&€SON€CONTRACTORS,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óDefendants/Appellants.à àò ò)ó óÌÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OFÏWEAKLEY€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€DRESDEN,€TENNESSEEÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€W.€M.€MALOAN,€CHANCELLORÌÌÌÌœÌÌ›Ìò òH.€MAX€SPEIGHTÌó óMartin,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€AppellantsÌÌò òJEFFREY€W.€PARHAMÌó óMartin,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€AppellantsÌÌò òWILLIAM€R.€NEESEÌTHOMAS€&€NEESEÌó óDresden,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€AppelleesÌÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDÌœÌÌ›ÌÌó óà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.ÌÌHEWITT€P.€TOMLIN,€JR.,€SR.€J.Ìó óà àœÌÌÓÓà àPlaintiffs›€brought€this€suit€for€property€damages€sustained€when€a€piece€of€ÏÑ7€×ÎXXdæXXdæ7Ñdefendantððs€construction€equipment€fell€onto€their€house.€The€trial€court€found€thatÏdefendantððs€employee€was€negligent€in€the€operation€of€the€equipment€and€awardedÏjudgment€in€favor€of€plaintiffs.€€Defendant€has€appealed,€arguing€that€there€wasÏinsufficient€evidence€of€negligence€and€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€its€calculation€ofÏdamages.€€We€find€these€contentions€to€be€without€merit€and,€for€the€reasons€statedÏbelow,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€judgment.à àÌÌà àPlaintiffs,€Bruce€and€Laurie€Britt,€contracted€with€defendant,€Legens€&€SonÏContractors,€to€construct€a€basement€onto€their€home€for€a€contract€price€of€$5,692.50.€ÏœLegens›€completed€the€basement€in€November€1990.€€œA›€few€months€later,€theÏbasement€œflooded.€Legens›€came€to€the€Brittsðð€œhouse,€removed›€the€drains,€andÏreinstalled€the€drainage€system.€œ€In›€July€1992,€however,€the€basement€again€flooded.ÏœLegens›€sent€a€backhoe€operator€and€a€backhoe€to€the€Brittsðð€house€in€order€toÏdetermine€why€the€drains€were€not€working.€ÌÌà àBill€Fisher,€the€backhoe€operator,€used€the€backhoe€to€dig€out€the€trench€thatÏwas€located€beside€the€house€in€order€to€examine€the€drain€lines.€œWhile›€Fisher€wasÏoperating€the€backhoe,€the€leg€of€the€backhoe€sunk€into€the€soft€ground,€causing€theÏbackhoe€to€fall€into€the€foundation€wall€of€the€Brittsðð€house.€€œFisher›€described€theÏincident€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àQ.€€Did€you€experience€any€trouble€with€your€backhoe?Ìà8 àà8 àA.€€No,€sir,€nothing€but€just€the€legers€giving€away,€the€softÏground€giving€away€with€me.Ìà8 àà8 àQ.€€Soft€ground?Ìà8 àà8 àA.€€Yes,€sir.Ìà8 àà8 àQ.€€What€happened€with€your€leger?Ìà8 àà8 àA.€€It€just€slowly€just€sunk€down€into€the€ground,€and€myÏtractor€slowly€leaned€against€the€house.€ÌÓÓà àÌà àThe€impact€from€the€backhoe€resulted€in€substantial€damage€to€the€BrittsððÏresidence.€€Mr.€Murphy,€an€engineer,€evaluated€the€damage€to€the€property€andÏdrafted€a€report€delineating€the€necessary€repairs.€€œMurphy›€found€that€in€addition€to€theÏdamage€caused€by€the€backhoe,€the€basement€walls€that€Legens€had€built€were€notÏproperly€reinforced€and€were€not€attached€to€the€structure€of€the€house.€œAccording›€toÏMurphy,€these€defects€in€construction€resulted€in€an€exacerbation€of€the€damages€œthat›Ïresulted€from€the€impact€from€the€backhoe.€œÌ›Ìà àLocal€contractors€submitted€bids€for€the€repairs€based€upon€Murphyððs€report.€ÏœRandy›€Edwards,€the€successful€bidder,€submitted€two€bids.€€The€first€was€theÏð ðinsurance€bidðð€for€$30,187.71,€which€represented€the€amount€for€which€he€wouldÏreturn€the€structure€to€its€condition€prior€to€the€backhoe€incident.€€œThe›€second€bid€wasÏthe€ð ðextras€bidðð€for€$5,146.74,€which€was€the€amount€necessary€to€repair€the€deficientÍconstruction€by€Legens.€Ìà àÌà à€Edwards€made€the€repairs€reflected€in€Murphyððs€report.€€œIn›€order€to€performÏsuch€repairs,€the€house€was€lifted€from€the€ground€while€Edwards€and€his€employeesÏremoved€the€exterior€foundation€walls€and€rebuilt€new€walls€according€to€MurphyððsÏspecifications.€€œEdwards›€removed€the€basement€walls,€ceiling,€and€plumbing€work,Ïand€replaced€and€painted€the€sheetrock.€ÌÌà àThe€Britts€filed€a€complaint€against€Legens,€alleging€breach€of€contract,€breachÏof€warranty,€and€negligence.€€œAt›€the€conclusion€of€the€original€hearing€on€the€matter,Ïthe€trial€judge€stated€that€he€was€unable€to€determine€what€portion€of€the€damagesÏclaimed€by€the€Britts€was€caused€by€the€backhoe€and€what€portion€of€the€damagesÏwas€caused€by€the€flooding.€€œEdwards›€was€the€sole€witness€at€a€subsequent€hearingÏon€this€issue.€€œAccording›€to€Edwards,€the€flood€damage€had€no€effect€on€the€work€thatÏhe€performed€in€repairing€the€damages€caused€by€the€impact€from€the€backhoe.ÏœEdwards›€testified:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àQ.€Now,€when€you€arrived,€did€you€have€to€do€anyÏadditional€repairs€or€make€any€additional€charges€to€repairÏthe€water€damage?Ìà8 àà8 àA.€€The€water€damage€was€kind€of€neither€here€nor€there€toÏme.Ìà8 àà8 àQ.€€Now,€why€do€you€say€that?Ìà8 àà8 àA.€€What€work€I€had€to€do,€didnððt€make€any€difference€if€thereÏwas€any€water€damage€or€there€was€not€any€water€damageÏor€it€was€in€excellent€shape€except€for€the€structural€part€ofÏit.€€I€had€to€tear€it€out€anyway.Ìà8 àà8 àQ.€€Why€did€you€have€to€tear€it€out€anyway?Ìà8 àà8 àA.€€I€had€to€tear€it€out€to€fix€the€damaged€area.Ìà8 àà8 àQ.€€Okay.€€Was€that€necessary€or€ð!ð€ð!ðÌà8 àà8 àA.€€Absolutely€necessary.Ìà8 àà8 àQ.€€And€just€tell€the€Court,€I€mean,€because€heððs€not€aÏbuilder€and€nor€am€I,€why€it€was€necessary€to€tear€all€of€thisÏout€in€order€to€fix€the€damage.Ìà8 àà8 àA.€€Okay.€€What€we€had€was€like€a€finished€basement.€€ItÏwas€Sheetrocked€[sic]€inside.€€It€was€trimmed€out.€€It€wasÏpainted€and€decorated.€€The€damage,€whatever€caused€it,Ïthe€house€had€to€be€lifted€up.€€In€order€to€lift€the€house€up,Ïall€this€had€to€be€tore€out.Ìà8 àà8 àà àWhat€wasnððt€tore€out€to€be€lifted,€had€to€be€tore€out€toÏbe€repaired€after€it€was€lifted€due€to€the€damage€of€lifting€theÏhouse.€€So€thatððs€why€I€say€regardless€if€it€was€waterÏdamage€what€happened€before€or€any€kind€of€damage€thatÏhappened€before,€to€fix€the€damage€I€was€hired€to€do,€it€hadÏto€be€tore€œout.Ì›ÌÌÌÓÓà àFollowing€the€hearing,€the€trial€court€held€that€Legens€was€absolved€fromÏliability€for€any€damages€that€occurred€as€a€result€of€the€flooding€because€there€was€noÏevidence€that€Legensðð€negligence€caused€the€flooding.€€However,€the€trial€court€heldÏLegens€liable€for€damages€in€the€amount€of€$30,187.81€due€to€the€backhoe€operatorððsÏnegligence€in€striking€the€house€with€the€œbackhoe.€In›€addition,€the€trial€court€awarded€Ï$5,146.74€to€the€Britts€as€compensation€for€the€expenses€they€incurred€in€curing€theÏdeficiencies€in€the€construction€of€the€foundation€wall.€ÌÌà àLegens€has€raised€three€issues€on€appeal,€which€are:€(1)€whether€the€trial€courtÏerred€in€finding€defendant€negligent€for€the€acts€of€its€employee€when€there€was€noÏevidence€that€such€employee€was€negligent;€(2)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€inÏpermitting€the€Britts€to€recover€for€damages€that€were€not€caused€by€the€backhoeÏincident;€and€(3)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€Edwardððs€estimate€of€the€costÏof€repairs€into€evidence€when€there€was€no€evidence€of€the€actual€costs€of€the€repairs.Ì€Ìà àOur€first€task€in€the€present€case€is€to€determine€whether€the€evidenceÏpreponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€determination€that€defendantððs€employee€wasÏnegligent€in€his€operation€of€the€backhoe.€€Otherwise,€we€are€bound€to€adhere€to€theÏtrial€courtððs€findings.€€T.R.A.P.€13(d).€€ÌÌà àA€cause€of€action€for€negligence€requires€three€elements:€(1)€a€duty€of€careÏowed€by€defendant€to€plaintiff,€(2)€a€breach€of€that€duty€by€defendant,€and€(3)€damagesÏto€the€plaintiff€proximately€caused€by€defendantððs€breach€of€duty.€€òòKelley€v.€Johnsonóó,Ï796€S.W.2d€155,€157€(Tenn.€App.€1990).€ÌÌà àThe€Britts€argue€that€Fisherððs€testimony€fully€supports€the€trial€courtððs€finding€thatÏhe€was€negligent€in€the€operation€of€the€backhoe.€€According€to€the€Britts,€FisherððsÏadmission€that€he€had€problems€with€the€backhoe€in€that€it€kept€sinking€into€the€groundÏindicated€that€he€knew€that€a€dangerous€situation€existed.€€His€failure€to€takeÏprecautions€or€to€discontinue€digging€constituted€negligence.ÌÌà àœAfter€a€review€of€the›€record,€we€are€œpersuaded›€that€œthe€evidence€does€notÏpreponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€findings.€We›€therefore€affirm€the€trial€courtððsÏdetermination€that€defendantððs€employee€was€negligent€in€his€operation€of€theÏbackhoe.€€ÌÌà àSimilarly,€we€find€no€error€in€the€trial€courtððs€calculation€and€award€of€damagesÍin€the€present€case.€€Findings€of€the€trial€court€that€hinge€upon€the€credibility€ofÏwitnesses€are€entitled€to€great€weight€on€appeal€because€the€trial€judge€had€the€abilityÏto€observe€the€manner€and€demeanor€of€the€witnesses€while€they€testified.€€òòGalbreathÏv.€Harrisóó,€811€S.W.2d€88€(Tenn.€App.€1990).€€In€order€to€reverse€an€issue€dependingÏon€witness€credibility,€there€must€exist€in€the€record€other€real€evidence€compelling€aÏcontrary€conclusion.€€òòState€ex€rel€Balsinger€v.€Town€of€Madisonvilleóó,€222€Tenn.€272,Ï435€S.W.2d€803€(1968).ÌÌà àLegens€failed€to€offer€any€proof€contrary€to€Edwardsðð€testimony€regarding€theÏdistribution€of€damages.€€The€trial€judge€apparently€believed€Edwards€when€he€saidÏthat€he€would€have€had€to€perform€the€same€œwork€regardless›€of€the€flood€damage.€€œWe›Ïhold€that€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€monetary€award€made€byÏthe€trial€judge.ÌÌà àFinally,€we€find€no€merit€in€Legensðð€contention€that€it€is€impossible€to€determineÏdamages€in€this€case€due€to€insufficient€evidence€proffered€by€Edwards€regarding€hisÏactual€costs.€œ€€There›€is€simply€no€evidence€in€the€record€indicating€that€Edwardsðð€bidÏwas€unreasonable€or€otherwise€improperly€calculated.€€ÌÌà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€œaffirmed.›€€Costs€on€appeal€areÏadjudged€against€œappellants,›€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€œnecessary.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïóóà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌLILLARD,€J.ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌTOMLIN,€Sr.€J.›