Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractlawsuitbreach of contractdamagesattorneynegligenceliabilitytrial
contractlawsuitbreach of contractdamagesattorneynegligenceliabilitytrial

Related Cases

Fera v. Village Plaza, Inc., 396 Mich. 639, 242 N.W.2d 372, 92 A.L.R.3d 1278
View Case »
Shields v. Morton Chemical Co., 95 Idaho 674, 518 P.2d 857
View Case »
Rindlisbaker v. Wilson, 95 Idaho 752, 519 P.2d 421
View Case »
Siam v. Mountain Vista Builders, 544 S.W.3d 504
View Case »
Bander v. Grossman, 161 Misc.2d 119, 611 N.Y.S.2d 985, 23 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 1159
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Matherne v. Barnum, 94 So.3d 782, 2011-0827 (La.App. 1 Cir. 3/19/12)

Facts

The Mathernes contracted with Barnum Construction, L.L.C. for the construction of a bulkhead, boat slip, and deck at their waterfront property for $39,000. After completion, they discovered significant defects, including a sinkhole and cracks, prompting them to hire a civil engineer who deemed the work poorly designed and constructed. Following unsuccessful attempts by Barnum to remedy the issues, the Mathernes filed a lawsuit seeking damages for breach of contract.

The Mathernes contracted with Barnum Construction, L.L.C. for the construction of a bulkhead, boat slip, and deck at their waterfront property for $39,000. After completion, they discovered significant defects, including a sinkhole and cracks, prompting them to hire a civil engineer who deemed the work poorly designed and constructed. Following unsuccessful attempts by Barnum to remedy the issues, the Mathernes filed a lawsuit seeking damages for breach of contract.

Issue

Whether the contractor, Barnum, could be held personally liable for the defective workmanship despite being a member of a limited liability company, and whether the awarded damages, particularly non-pecuniary damages, were appropriate.

Whether the contractor, Barnum, could be held personally liable for the defective workmanship despite being a member of a limited liability company, and whether the awarded damages, particularly non-pecuniary damages, were appropriate.

Rule

A member of a limited liability company can be held personally liable for negligence or wrongful conduct, and damages for non-pecuniary loss may be recovered if the contract was intended to gratify a significant non-pecuniary interest.

A member of a limited liability company can be held personally liable for negligence or wrongful conduct, and damages for non-pecuniary loss may be recovered if the contract was intended to gratify a significant non-pecuniary interest.

Analysis

The court found sufficient evidence to support the trial court's conclusion that Barnum's work was performed negligently, justifying personal liability despite his LLC status. The court also upheld the trial court's determination that the Mathernes were entitled to non-pecuniary damages due to the nature of the contract, which was intended to provide enjoyment and satisfaction in their home.

The court found sufficient evidence to support the trial court's conclusion that Barnum's work was performed negligently, justifying personal liability despite his LLC status. The court also upheld the trial court's determination that the Mathernes were entitled to non-pecuniary damages due to the nature of the contract, which was intended to provide enjoyment and satisfaction in their home.

Conclusion

The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment in part, reducing the non-pecuniary damages to $5,000 and reversing the award of attorney's fees, resulting in a total damage award of $57,638.25.

The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment in part, reducing the non-pecuniary damages to $5,000 and reversing the award of attorney's fees, resulting in a total damage award of $57,638.25.

Who won?

The Mathernes prevailed in the case as the court upheld their claims of defective workmanship and awarded them damages, although the amount for non-pecuniary damages was reduced.

The Mathernes prevailed in the case as the court upheld their claims of defective workmanship and awarded them damages, although the amount for non-pecuniary damages was reduced.

You must be