Kramer v. Kuhlman Constr. Co.

Full title: RICHARD KRAMER, d/b/a KNIGHT-LIGHT SUPPER CLUB, Plaintiff-Appellant, v…

Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa

Date published: Oct 16, 2002

No. 2-842 / 02-0514 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 16, 2002)

Opinion

No. 2-842 / 02-0514

Filed October 16, 2002

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Alan L. Pearson, Judge.

Plaintiff appeals a district court verdict for defendants in this tort claim. AFFIRMED.

Les Reddick of Kane, Norby Reddick, P.C., Dubuque, for appellant.

Edward Krug of Krug Beckelman, P.L.C., Cedar Rapids, for appellee Bennett Explosives,

Brendan Quann of O'Connor Thomas, P.C., Dubuque, for appellee Kuhlman Construction.

Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Miller and Eisenhauer, JJ.

PER CURIAM

The only question in this case where plaintiff seeks damages from the defendants, contending their blasting activities damaged his commercial building, is whether there was substantial evidence to support the verdict. We find that there was and affirm.

A jury was waived and the matter was tried to the district court. The only issue is whether the plaintiff proved that the damage to his building where the Knight Light Super Club was located was caused by the blasting. The district court found plaintiff failed in his proof. In doing so the district court relied heavily on the testimony of one Randy Mesch, whom the court found the more reliable witness because he had no personal financial interest in the outcome of the case, and he had significant training in assessing damages and determining their cause.

The plaintiff contends the district court's finding that the blasting did not damage his restaurant is not supported by substantial evidence.

Our scope of review in an action at law is for correction of errors at law. Chariton Feed Grain, Inc. v. Harder, 369 N.W.2d 777, 782 (Iowa 1985). Evidence is substantial to support a verdict if reasonable minds would find it adequate to reach the same conclusion. See Shams v. Carney, 518 N.W.2d 366, 369 (Iowa 1994). In considering the sufficiency of evidence, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party in whose favor the verdict was rendered. Condon Auto Sales Service, Inc. v. Crick, 604 N.W.2d 587, 593 (Iowa 1999). There is substantial evidence to support the verdict. We affirm.

AFFIRMED.