Qore, Inc. v. Bradford Bldg. Co., Inc.

Summary

The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the denial of QORE, Inc.'s motion for judgment as a matter of law in Bradford Building Company's negligence action. The court held that sufficient evidence supported submitting to the jury whether QORE owed and breached a duty to verify soil compaction or warn of testing limitations, whether Bradford reasonably relied on QORE, and whether QORE's conduct proximately caused Bradford's damages. The court also rejected QORE's arguments concerning contributory negligence and the sufficiency of the damages evidence.

Holdings

1. Bradford presented substantial evidence creating a jury question whether QORE owed and breached a contractual duty to verify that the tank-pit soil met project specifications and could support the building, or alternatively to warn that the necessary testing had not been performed and the building could fail.
2. A third party may recover in negligence for negligent performance of a contractual duty when the contracting party knows others are relying on proper performance and the resulting harm is reasonably foreseeable; Bradford presented sufficient evidence of such reasonable reliance to submit the issue to the jury.
3. The Court affirmed the judgment as to QORE's proximate-cause argument because QORE failed to provide adequate supporting authority under Rule 28(a)(5), and the Court would not perform the appellant's legal research.
4. Bradford was not contributorily negligent as a matter of law because the evidence permitted a jury to find that Bradford did not consciously appreciate and assume the risk of injury when it relied on QORE to verify the soil's suitability.
5. Bradford presented substantial evidence sufficient to permit the jury to determine the amount of compensatory damages.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Bradford presented substantial evidence that QORE owed and breached a duty to verify the compaction and load-bearing capacity of the soil in the former tank pits or to warn that the soil could not be verified.
2. Whether Bradford presented substantial evidence that it reasonably relied on QORE's contractual testing obligations despite not being in privity with QORE's contract with RKM.
3. Whether Bradford presented substantial evidence of proximate causation despite its decision to pay for repairs to the slab.
4. Whether Bradford was contributorily negligent as a matter of law.
5. Whether Bradford presented substantial evidence supporting the amount of damages awarded.

Disposition

affirmed