Defendant steel company appealed an order of the Superior Court of Fresno County (California), which denied defendant a jury trial in plaintiff general contractor’s action to recover damages after defendant refused to perform on a subcontract for the installation of reinforcing steel in the construction of a waste water treatment plant.

Overview

Plaintiff solicited bids from defendant and other subcontractors for the installation of reinforcing steel in the construction of a waste water treatment plant. Plaintiff sought counsel from a small business attorney. Plaintiff sued defendant to recover damages after defendant refused to perform in accordance with its bid on the subcontract. The dispositive issue was whether defendant was properly denied its constitutional right to a jury trial under Cal. Const. art. I, § 16. The court found that the jury was called upon to determine whether injustice could be avoided only enforcement of defendant’s promise. The gist of such an action was equitable. Both historically and functionally, the task of weighing such equitable considerations was to be performed the trial court, not the jury. The court concluded that the trial court properly treated the action as equitable in nature, to be tried the court with or without an advisory jury as the court elected.

Outcome

The judgment of the trial court denying defendant the right to a jury trial was affirmed because the trial court properly treated plaintiff’s action as equitable in nature, to be tried the court with or without an advisory jury as the court elected.

Procedural Posture

Defendant, a soil tester, sought review of a judgment entered in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California) in favor of plaintiff property owners in plaintiffs’ action for breach of warranty, deceit, and negligence based on defendant’s alleged misrepresentation concerning the depth of fill on their property.

Overview

Plaintiff property owners filed an action for breach of warranty, deceit, and negligence, alleging that defendant, a soil tester, furnished incorrect information as to the depth of fill on their property, which increased the cost of installing a foundation. The court reversed the judgment. The court ruled that the evidence did not warrant imposing strict liability based on a breach of warranty because those who sell their services to guide others are not liable in the absence of negligence or intentional misconduct. The court ruled that plaintiffs proved their deceit claim, based on evidence that the fill on the property was much greater than the depth represented defendant, and also proved their negligence claim, based on evidence that defendant negligently performed the fill test, but that plaintiffs failed to prove damages. The court found that that the claimed expenses would have been incurred whether or not defendant correctly reported the extent of the fill, and that plaintiffs did not prove any losses flowing from their decision to build.

Outcome

The court reversed the judgment entered in favor of plaintiff property owners in their action alleging breach of warranty, deceit, and negligence, ruling that plaintiffs did not prove damages flowing from their decision to build based on incorrect information furnished to them defendant, a soil tester.