 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Classified Postings in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
TAD Resources International5/28/2002
Appellant TAD Resources International, Inc. (TAD) appeals following a jury verdict, contending multiple errors by the trial court, including evidence wrongfully admitted and excluded, entering judgment for the wrong party, and incorrect rulings on posttrial motions. We affirm the judgment.
I.
FACTS
TAD is in the business of providing temporary workers to other employers. Setco, Inc. (Setco) manufactures a variety of products. From 1987 through 1997, TAD supplied temporary workers as packers at Setco's manufacturing plant. At some point, TAD claimed Setco had misrepresented the scope of the job duties required of the TAD workers. They claimed to be taken by surprise when they discovered that TAD employees were operating machines. TAD alleged Setco had been underpaying, as Setco was only paying the rate for hand packers. Machine packers were charged at a higher rate. On September 11, 1997, TAD filed this action against Setco.
There was a jury trial resulting in a special verdict. The jury concluded the amount TAD charged Setco did not accurately reflect the reasonable value of the services provided by TAD in the amount of $2,923, and found damages for negligent misrepresentation in the amount of $73,475. But the jury found against TAD on a statute of limitations question. Possibly due to the wording of the verdict form, both sides claim they prevailed, and that there was substantial evidence to support each "victory." Judgment was entered for Setco.
II.
DISCUSSION
Statute of Limitations
TAD has three statute of limitations challenges regarding the trial judge's entering judgment in favor of Setco. First, it claims there was not substantial evidence to support the jury's decision that TAD knew in 1987 that its workers would be using machinery. The second argument relates to the causes of action for breach of contract and open book account. The statute of limitations for breach of a written contract is four years (See Code Civ. Proc., § 337), and TAD argues the contract was breached within four years of the filing of the complaint. The other challenge is that because the statute of limitations for negligent misrepresentation is three years, there is just as much an inference the jury awarded the damages for the three-year period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint as not. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 338.) TAD argues the statute of limitations would have been tolled during the period of concealment.
The special verdict was divided into sections. In the section titled "SPECIAL VERDICT [ ] STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS," the jury was asked the date plaintiff knew or should have known its packers used equipment while working at Setco. All five types of equipment were listed on the form. This generated a jury request for clarification whether they were supposed to list five dates or one date for each machine. They were given the following answer: "The question is requesting the first date plaintiff knew or should have known its packers at Setco used any of the pieces of equipment at Setco identified on the special verdict form." The answer was "Date: 1987." But above the answer, numbered one through five, there were listed the names of the five machines. Next to two of those machines, the special verdict form has hand-written next to them a notation, "May 1996." These notations were included in the "JUDGMENT ON SPECIAL VERDICT."
Substantial Evidence
Substantial evidence is evidence of ponderable legal significance, reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value. (Estate of Teed (1952) 112 Cal.App.2d 638, 644.) The testimony of a single witness can provide the
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 California Classifieds
Classified Postings
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Classified Postings in your area.
|
|