Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 48 views

    Kohn v. Johnson Case Brief

    Uploaded by

    Kevin
    The Supreme Court of Alabama ruled in favor of the plaintiff, Johnson, in her lawsuit against the defendant, Kohn, regarding numerous defects in an addition Kohn constructed for Johnson's house. The Court found that the addition required extensive repairs costing around $16,000 due to poor workmanship by Kohn. The Court also rejected Kohn's arguments that the theory of economic waste applied in this case and that the trial court erred by not allowing the jury to visit the property, finding the plaintiff provided sufficient photographic evidence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Kohn v. Johnson Case Brief

    Uploaded by

    Kevin
    48 views1 page
    The Supreme Court of Alabama ruled in favor of the plaintiff, Johnson, in her lawsuit against the defendant, Kohn, regarding numerous defects in an addition Kohn constructed for Johnson's house. The Court found that the addition required extensive repairs costing around $16,000 due to poor workmanship by Kohn. The Court also rejected Kohn's arguments that the theory of economic waste applied in this case and that the trial court erred by not allowing the jury to visit the property, finding the plaintiff provided sufficient photographic evidence.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court of Alabama ruled in favor of the plaintiff, Johnson, in her lawsuit against the defendant, Kohn, regarding numerous defects in an addition Kohn constructed for Johnson's house. The Court found that the addition required extensive repairs costing around $16,000 due to poor workmanship by Kohn. The Court also rejected Kohn's arguments that the theory of economic waste applied in this case and that the trial court erred by not allowing the jury to visit the property, finding the plaintiff provided sufficient photographic evidence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    48 views1 page

    Kohn v. Johnson Case Brief

    Uploaded by

    Kevin
    The Supreme Court of Alabama ruled in favor of the plaintiff, Johnson, in her lawsuit against the defendant, Kohn, regarding numerous defects in an addition Kohn constructed for Johnson's house. The Court found that the addition required extensive repairs costing around $16,000 due to poor workmanship by Kohn. The Court also rejected Kohn's arguments that the theory of economic waste applied in this case and that the trial court erred by not allowing the jury to visit the property, finding the plaintiff provided sufficient photographic evidence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Kohn v.

    Johnson
    Supreme Court of Alabama, 1990
    Chief Justice Hornsby:

    Facts: Kohn (defendant) was orally contracted to construct an addition to Johnson’s (plaintiff’s) house for
    $6,500, which was later increased to $6,800. Once construction was completed, numerous problems with
    the renovation were revealed. These problems included an improperly-laid and finished foundation,
    numerous leaks in the ceiling, walls, and windows, an un-level ridge of the roof, and a roof that vibrated
    when a nearby train passed by the house. Oddis Bruner, an expert in the construction industry with 42
    years of experience, performed an inspection of the residence and determined that all of the alleged
    defects were a result of poor workmanship. Such claims were backed up by numerous pieces of evidence,
    such finishing nails being passed by in favor of standard nails, which rust and then “back out” of the
    wood. Johnson made several attempts to get Kohn to rectify the damage, but he never did, so Johnson
    filed suit against Kohn. The trial court ruled in favor of Johnson, awarding her $15,000 for monetary loss
    and $20,000 for mental anguish, and Kohn appealed.

    Issue 1: Did the defendant provide a finished product that required only minor alternations, as he argued?

    Issue 2: Does the theory of economic waste apply in this case?

    Issue 3: Did the trial court abuse its discretion by refusing to allow the jury to visit the site of the damages
    incurred?

    Holding 1: No

    Holding 2: No

    Holding 3: No

    Rationale 1: Johnson would have to put considerable expense into making the addition to her house safe
    and livable, estimated to be about $16,000, and the owner is typically entitled to recover such losses in
    similar cases.

    Rationale 2: The addition has massive defects that caused rotting, leaking, and sagging, and a foundation
    that could be prone to shifting or even collapsing. This is not economic waste, and the defendant
    presented no evidence to indicate that repairing the defects in the addition would amount to economic
    waste. The recovery of $15,000 in damages to remedy the defects is not clearly disproportionate to the
    loss of value on the house suffered by Johnson.

    Rationale 3: The plaintiff produced numerous photos depicting the condition of the house addition, and it
    is the trial judge’s discretion as to whether or not this is enough evidence to warrant not scheduling a site
    visit. Thus, the judge was not out of line and did not abuse his discretion.

    You might also like