Caseflicks

Ohio Supreme Court • 1978

C. E. Morris Co. v. Foley Construction Co.

54 Ohio St. 2d 279 | 376 N.E.2d 578 | 8 Ohio Op. 3d 261 | 1978 Ohio LEXIS 556

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case confirms that an appellate court may not overturn a trial court's causation finding as against the manifest weight of the evidence when competent, credible evidence supports alternative causes of the claimed loss.

Background

Foley Construction was building a highway project and requested that C. E. Morris deliver steel in March. Morris did not deliver the steel until July. Foley ultimately finished the project 141 days late, although the state treated only 41 days as compensable late days.

The Court of Common Pleas found that Morris's late delivery was not the proximate cause of Foley's delay damages. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that this finding was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Morris appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, which reinstated the trial court's judgment.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly held that the trial court's finding of no proximate causation was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Holding

No. The trial court's finding was supported by competent, credible evidence, so the Court of Appeals could not reverse it as against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Reasoning

The governing appellate rule is that a judgment supported by some competent, credible evidence on every essential element will not be reversed as against the manifest weight of the evidence. The reviewing court does not substitute its own evaluation of disputed proof for the trial court's factfinding when the record contains evidence supporting that finding.

Although Foley requested March delivery and Morris delivered the steel in July, the evidence did not compel the conclusion that the late delivery caused Foley's losses. Testimony showed that the project remained on schedule when Morris delivered the steel.

There was also evidence that, for 45 days after delivery, the steel sat at the worksite because the state and railway had not approved erection plans. Foley or a subcontractor other than Morris was responsible for submitting those plans. Thus, the steel could not yet have been used in bridge construction even after Morris delivered it.

Finally, testimony indicated that Foley's own inadequate project staffing contributed at least in part to its inability to meet the completion deadline. Taken together, this evidence permitted the trial court to find that Morris's July delivery was not the proximate cause of Foley's damages.

Issue #2

Whether Morris's failure to raise the appellate-review-standard question in the memoranda supporting or opposing jurisdiction barred the Supreme Court from deciding that question after allowing the motion to certify.

Holding

No. Once a cause is properly before the Supreme Court, the Court may determine questions presented by the record, including the standard the Court of Appeals used to review the trial court's finding.

Reasoning

Foley argued that the Court could consider only propositions of law raised in the jurisdictional memoranda. The Court rejected that position because a properly appealed case is before it for the proper resolution of all questions shown by the record.

The Court of Appeals' review standard was plainly reflected in the record because that court had reversed the trial court's proximate-cause finding as against the manifest weight of the evidence. Morris's omission of that precise issue from its jurisdictional memorandum therefore did not prevent Supreme Court review.