James B. Tennill, Sr. v. Cyrus M. Talai

Summary

The Supreme Court of Kentucky addressed whether a trial court properly refused to set aside a default judgment and whether the plaintiff's failure to answer written interrogatories concerning unliquidated damages barred recovery. The court held that the default judgment was properly maintained, but that counsel's damages deposition and failure to pursue further clarification waived strict compliance with CR 8.01(2), making the discovery error harmless. The court affirmed in part and reversed in part the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court's damages award.

Holdings

1. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to set aside the default because Talai failed to show good cause, including a meritorious defense.
2. A default admits liability but does not admit unliquidated damages; therefore, Talai was entitled to discovery concerning the amount of Tennill's damages.
3. Although CR 8.01(2) is strictly construed and an unanswered interrogatory concerning unliquidated damages ordinarily operates as an effective answer of zero, Tennill was not barred from recovering damages because Talai waived strict compliance and the omission was harmless under the circumstances.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to set aside the default judgment under CR 55.02.
2. Whether Tennill's failure to answer written interrogatories specifying his unliquidated damages barred recovery of those damages under CR 8.01(2).
3. Whether Talai waived strict compliance with CR 8.01(2), and whether Tennill's failure to answer the interrogatories was harmless, when Talai obtained discovery through Tennill's deposition concerning the amount and nature of the damages.

Disposition

affirmed_in_part_reversed_in_part