Explosive Specialists Inc. v. Whaley Construction Co., Inc., - Concurring

CourtCourt of Appeals of Tennessee
DecidedJanuary 3, 1996
Docket03A01-9509-CH-00305
StatusPublished

This text of Explosive Specialists Inc. v. Whaley Construction Co., Inc., - Concurring (Explosive Specialists Inc. v. Whaley Construction Co., Inc., - Concurring) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Explosive Specialists Inc. v. Whaley Construction Co., Inc., - Concurring, (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

I N THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

EASTERN SECTI ON FILED January 3, 1996 EXPLOSI VE SPECI ALI STS, I NC. , ) C/ A NO. 03A01- 9509- CH- 00305 Cecil Crowson, Jr. ) Appellate C ourt Clerk Pl a i nt i f f - Appe l l e e , ) KNOX CHANCERY ) v. ) HON. H. DAVI D CATE, ) CHANCELLOR WHALEY CONSTRUCTI ON CO. , I NC. , ) ) AFFI RMED AND De f e nda nt - Appe l l a nt . ) REMANDED

HOW ARD G. HOGAN, GRESHAM & HOGAN, Knoxvi l l e , f or Pl a i nt i f f - Ap p e l l e e .

RON CUNNI NGHAM FI NKELSTEI N, KERN, STEI NBERG & CUNNI NGHAM , , Kn o x v i l l e , f or De f e nda nt - Appe l l a nt .

O P I N I O N

Fr a nks . J .

I n t hi s a c t i on , pl a i nt i f f wa s a wa r de d j udgme nt f o r

wo r k p e r f or me d unde r a c ont r a c t , a nd de f e nda nt ha s a ppe a l e d ,

i n s i s t i ng t ha t pl a i nt i f f di d not pe r f or m i n a c c or da nc e wi t h

t h e a gr e e me nt b e t we e n t he pa r t i e s .

The de f e nda nt hi r e d pl a i nt i f f t o bl a s t t he r oc k o n

t h e Go ody' s Fa mi l y Cl ot hi ng Pr oj e c t , ne a r I nt e r s t a t e 40- 75 i n

Kn o x v i l l e , f or $3. 50 pe r c ubi c ya r d, wi t h pl a i nt i f f s uppl yi n g

t h e p o wde r a nd i ns ur a nc e a nd t he de f e nda nt s uppl yi ng t he f u e l f o r t he d r i l l s . The r e wa s no wr i t t e n c ont r a c t , a nd pl a i nt i f f

b e g a n bl a s t i ng i n mi d- Nove mbe r 1988 a nd bl a s t e d unt i l t he e n d

o f De c e mbe r whe n pl a i nt i f f wa s t e r mi na t e d by de f e nda nt .

Es s e nt i a l l y, t h e de t e r mi na t i ve i s s ue on a ppe a l wa s

f r a me d by t he Tr i a l J udge i n hi s f i ndi ngs of f a c t :

The di s put e pe r t a i ns t o whe t he r or not t he pl a i nt i f f wa s r e qui r e d t o f ur ni s h a n e nd pr oduc t , a f t e r bl a s t i ng, of t he r oc k t he s i z e of t wo f e e t i n di a me t e r o r l e s s . The pl a i nt i f f e mpha t i c a l l y de ni e s t ha t t hi s wa s t he a gr e e me nt , a nd s a ys t he r oc k, a f t e r b l a s t i ng, wa s t o be t he s i z e s o i t c oul d be move d, a nd t he de f e nda nt e mpha t i c a l l y a s s e r t s t ha t i t wa s t he a gr e e me nt .

Th e Tr i a l Cour t , a f t e r he a r i ng t he e vi de nc e , c onc l ude d:

To d e t e r mi ne wha t t he c ont r a c t wa s i n t hi s c a s e t h e c r e di bi l i t y of t he wi t ne s s be c ome s c r uc i a l .

W n t he pl a i nt i f f ' s t e s t i mony e vi de nc e i s he c ons i de r e d i n t he l i ght of t he l og book a nd ot he r wr i t t e n e vi de nc e of t he de f e nda nt , a nd t he f a c t t h a t t he c ount e r - c l a i m a ppe a r s t o ha ve a r i s e n a f t e r t h e f a c t , t h e Cou r t c onc l ude s t ha t t he pl a i nt i f f ' s ve r s i on of t he c ont r a c t a ppe a r s t o be t he c or r e c t ve r s i on.

The pl a i nt i f f ' s e vi de nc e wa s t o t he e f f e c t t ha t t h e

c o n t r a c t di d not r e qui r e t ha t t he bl a s t e d r oc k ha d t o be t wo

f e e t o r l e s s a nd pa na bl e , whi l e de f e nda nt ' s pr oof wa s t ha t

s u c h wa s t he a gr e e me nt . The Tr i a l J udge , i n ma ki ng hi s

f a c t u a l de t e r mi na t i on, r e l i e d he a vi l y on t he t e s t i mony of

p l a i nt i f f ' s wi t ne s s e s t o t ha t e f f e c t , a nd t ha t de f e nda nt di d

n o t c ompl a i n or pr ot e s t t he wa y a nd ma nne r i n whi c h pl a i nt i f f

wa s b l a s t i ng t he r oc k, whi c h t he Tr i a l Cour t f ound wa s

c o r r o b or a t e d by t he l og book a nd ot he r wr i t t e n e vi de nc e of t h e

d e f e n d a nt , i . e . , no not a t i on of a ny c ompl a i nt a bout

p l a i n t i f f ' s p e r f or ma nc e .

The f a mi l i a r r ul e r e qui r i ng no c i t a t i on i s t ha t

a pp e l l a t e c our t s g e ne r a l l y de f e r t o t he Tr i a l Cour t ' s

2 d e t e r mi na t i on o f t he c r e di bi l i t y of t he wi t ne s s e s . W f i nd e

n o t h i ng i n t hi s r e c or d t ha t woul d r e qui r e a ny de vi a t i on f r o m

t h e r u l e i n t hi s c a s e . The Tr i a l Cour t obs e r ve d t he de me a n o r

o f t h e wi t ne s s e s a nd he a r d t he t e s t i mony, a nd wa s i n a be t t e r

p o s i t i on t ha n t hi s Cour t t o e va l ua t e t he r e s pe c t i ve wi t ne s s e s '

c r e d i bi l i t y.

De f e nda nt ' s pr i nc i pa l a r gume nt on a ppe a l , a s s t a t e d

i n i t s br i e f i s :

I t i s t he pos i t i on of de f e nda nt t ha t r e a s ona bl y pr ude nt bus i ne s s me n i n t he bl a s t i ng a nd s i t e pr e pa r a t i on a nd c ons t r uc t i on i ndus t r y woul d ne ve r e nt e r i nt o a n a gr e e me nt t o dr i l l , s hoot , a nd t r a ns por t r oc k t o a c ont r ol l e d f i l l a r e a wi t hout r e qui r i ng t ha t t he r oc k f r a gme nt s c ompl y wi t h t he c us t om of t he i ndus t r y f or a c ont r ol l e d f i l l a r e a , i . e . , t o b e t wo f e e t or l e s s i n di a me t e r .

Th e d e f e nda nt di d of f e r e vi de nc e t ha t t hi s wa s t he c us t om i n

t h e i n dus t r y, a nd i ns i s t s t ha t t he c ont r a c t s houl d be

d e t e r mi ne d, t a ki ng i nt o a c c ount t he c us t om a nd us a ge of t he

t r a d e , c i t i ng Be at y Che v r ol e t , I nc . v . Compl e t e Aut o Tr ans i t ,

I nc . , 586 S. W 2d 122 ( Te nn. App. 1979) ; . J . Av e r y Br y an, I n c .

v . Hu b bar d, 225 S. W 2d 282 ( Te nn. App. 1949) . . The l e ga l

p o s i t i on a dva nc e d i s s ound, howe ve r , t hi s e vi de nc e wa s

d i s p u t e d by pl a i nt i f f ' s e xpe r t wi t ne s s .

Pl a i nt i f f of f e r e d t he t e s t i mony of a n e xpe r t

e x p e r i e nc e d i n bl a s t i ng , who t e s t i f i e d i n pe r t i ne nt pa r t :

Q. As s umi ng t ha t you ha ve a c ont r a c t t o bl a s t t h e r oc k t ha t we f ound out he r e , a nd we ' r e t a l ki n g a bout a t t he Goody' s s i t e t o t wo- f oot or l e s s , woul d yo u ha ve us e d t he pa t t e r n, a nd t he a mo u n t of dyna mi t e , a nd t he s t e mmi ng t ha t Expl os i ve Spe c i a l i s t s us e d?

A. W l l , i f I kne w t ha t my r e qui r e me nt wa s t wo- e f oot or l e s s , t he n I pr oba bl y woul d of ha d t o a dj us t my - - ma ybe I ' d ha d t o - - I woul d of pr oba bl y s t a r t e d wi t h t ha t pa t t e r n. And I ma y of ha d t o a dj us t t he s t e mmi ng, a nd a dj us t i t i n

3 t e r ms o f : Ca n I ge t by wi t h a l i t t l e l es s s t e mmi ng, a nd a l i t t l e mor e powde r , a nd not t hr ow r oc k. And i t ' s goi ng t o be a ba l a nc e . J us t l i ke - - j us t l i ke M . Cl a r k s a i r d. It's a c r i t i c a l a r e a out t he r e .

Q. But woul d you ha ve be e n c a pa bl e of doi ng i t , bl a s t i ng t ha t r oc k?

A. Sur e . Ab s ol ut e l y. One of t he r e qui r e me nt s o n one of our r e c e nt j obs , l i ke I wa s t e l l i ng y o u , a t t he a i r por t . The y ha d a r e qui r e me nt not t wo- f oot , but down t o t we l ve - i nc he s f or f i l l r oc k.

Q. For f i l l r oc k?

A. I don' t t hi nk t hi s t wo- f oot i s ne c e s s a r i l y a uni ve r s a l s t a nda r d t hi ng a nybody c a n s hoot . It j us t de pe nds on t he j ob. And s ome j obs I ' ve s e e n we r e a c c e pt a bl e f or a f our - f oot e r , or e ve n l a r ge r r oc k, i s a c c e pt a bl e .

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Hamblen County v. City of Morristown
656 S.W.2d 331 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1983)
J. Avery Bryan, Inc. v. Hubbard
225 S.W.2d 282 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1949)
Beaty Chevrolet, Inc. v. Complete Auto Transit, Inc.
586 S.W.2d 122 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Explosive Specialists Inc. v. Whaley Construction Co., Inc., - Concurring, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/explosive-specialists-inc-v-whaley-construction-co-tennctapp-1996.