Opinion
No. 76-146
Decided September 23, 1976. Rehearing denied October 14, 1976. Certiorari denied December 20, 1976.
In action to recover for defects in construction of new home purchased by plaintiffs from defendant, jury verdict of $3,500 for plaintiffs was entered, and defendant appealed.
Affirmed
1. EVIDENCE — Written Statements — Summarizing Voluminous Records — Admissible — To Aid Jury — Exhibit of Repair Costs — Numerous Separate Defects — Admission Not Error. To aid the jury in its deliberations, the trial court is vested with discretion to admit in evidence written statements which are prepared for use at trial and which contain summaries of voluminous records or other data which are already in evidence; accordingly, in an action to recover for defects in the construction of a new home, where plaintiffs' expert witness testified as to 17 separate defects, and where an exhibit was offered which contained the expert's statement of repair cost for each item, there was no abuse of the trial court's discretion in admitting this exhibit.
Appeal from the District Court of Jefferson County, Honorable Ronald J. Hardesty, Judge.
Sonheim Helm, Phillip A. Less, for plaintiffs-appellees.
George Alan Holley Associates, Stephan A. Tisdel, Dan Smith, for defendant-appellant.
In an action by plaintiffs, Robert Beckman and Mary S. Beckman, to recover damages for defects in the construction of a new home purchased by them from defendant, Starlight Building Corporation, Starlight appeals from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict awarding Beckmans $3,500. We affirm.
Insofar as pertinent to this appeal, the record reflects that an expert witness was called by Beckmans who testified as to 17 separate defects in the residence and his opinion of the reasonable cost to repair each item. The costs ranged from $5 on one item to $880 on another, and the total cost was $5,695. An exhibit was then offered and admitted over Starlight's objection which contained the expert's statement of repair cost for each item.
Starlight contends that the admission of this exhibit into evidence was prejudicial error because it summarized the witness' testimony and thus served to unduly stress that testimony to the jury during its deliberations. We conclude that the admission of the exhibit was proper.
[1] To aid the jury in its deliberations, the trial court is vested with discretion to admit in evidence written statements which are prepared for use at trial and which contain summaries of voluminous records or other data which are already in evidence. See, e.g., Durand, Jackson Associates, Inc. v. Nasr, 180 Neb. 409, 143 N.W.2d 122 (1966); Plourd v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co., 266 Ore. 666, 513 P.2d 1140 (1973); Ruegamer v. Rocky Mountain Cementers, Inc., 72 Wyo. 258, 263 P.2d 146 (1953).
In the present case the witness testified on a Friday but the trial was not concluded until the following Monday. The jury members did not take notes while the witness testified. As indicated, the testimony covered the cost of repair for 17 separate items. It would be difficult, if not impossible, for the jury to retain this information until it commenced its deliberations. Hence, we find no abuse of the trial court's discretion in admitting this exhibit.
Contrary to Starlight's argument here, People v. Bugarin, 181 Colo. 62, 507 P.2d 875 (1973), does not support its position as to the admissibility of the exhibit. In that case an offense report prepared by a police officer was held not admissible in evidence since it contained prejudicial hearsay and had not been used by the officer to refresh his recollection. In the present case, the exhibit contained no hearsay information and was offered for a different purpose.
Starlight also contends that the trial court erred in denying its motion to file a third-party complaint against a contractor who, at the request of the Beckmans, installed a sidewalk adjacent to their residence. In support of this contention, Starlight argues that a portion of the damages claimed by Beckmans resulted from defects in construction of the sidewalk. This contention lacks merit.
After denying Starlight's motion, the trial court ruled that the Beckmans could not present any evidence of damages resulting from defects in the sidewalk. Hence, Starlight has no basis to complain about the trial court's ruling.
We have considered Starlight's contentions relative to the instructions given the jury and find those contentions to be without merit.
Judgment affirmed.
JUDGE COYTE and JUDGE BERMAN concur.