August / September 1998 - Barry and Sandra Erlich hired John Menezes to serve as general contractor for the
construction of their custom home in San Luis Obispo County. Seven months after
construction was completed, they sued the contractor for serious construction defects and
for emotional distress. They won and the contractor appealed.
In Erlich v. Menezes, 98 Daily journal D.A.R. 745, (January 23, 1998), the
Appellate Court said that the verdict was correct. The contractor claimed the Erlich's
shouldn't get money for emotional distress. The Court rejected the contractor's claim.
The Erlich's house was a disaster. Water leaked through the roof and windows, down
walls and in between floors. The roof was collapsing. The sheer walls or load bearing
walls were either incorrectly installed or absent altogether. The decks were about to
collapse. The house was uninhabitable.
Both of the Erlichs got sick because of the house catastrophe. Mr. Erlich acquired a
heart condition because of excessive stress attributed to the house problems. Both
suffered emotional distress.
The Court said that in order to recover damage for emotional distress one has to show
that the defendant has a duty to the plaintiff where the emotional condition of the
plaintiff is an object. Here, the Erlichs and Mr. Menezes had a contractual relationship
to build a house in exchange for money. The Court held that there is an
"emotional" component to building a personal residence. Mr. Menezes' negligent
construction of the house, resulting in an uninhabitable and unsafe house, breached
his duty to construct the house in a workmanlike manner. The Court held the Erlichs'
emotional distress was proximately caused by Mr. Menezes shoddy work. Therefore, the
Erlichs prevailed.
Arguably, this Court's reasoning could apply to an owner of a home or condominium,
whether custom built or mass produced. It is not the first time the Court in California
has grappled with this problem. The last time it did, it also favored the homeowner but
that decision was never published and could not be used by plaintiffs to prove their case.
We'll have to see if this decision stands the test of time.
© Copyright 2008 The Miller Law Firm. All rights Reserved.
If you experience problems or have questions, contact us at Info@ConstructionDefects.com.
|
