{"id":905348,"date":"2026-02-12T15:53:02","date_gmt":"2026-02-12T22:53:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?p=905348"},"modified":"2026-02-12T15:53:06","modified_gmt":"2026-02-12T22:53:06","slug":"damages-dont-forget","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/damages-dont-forget\/","title":{"rendered":"Don\u2019t Forget the Damages"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Jordan Weeks | Frantz Ward<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

During litigation, it\u2019s easy to focus on the merits without addressing how much you are seeking to recover. Sometimes a party is so focused on fault that they disregard the obligation to prove the extent of damages<\/a> with reasonable certainty.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is what one party recently discovered in Iannetta v. JDL Concrete<\/em>, 2025-Ohio-5472 (11th Dist.).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Case Background<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A homeowner hired a contractor to pour and finish a partial driveway, apron, and sidewalk for $7,600. The contract required \u201call work to be completed in a workman like manner.\u201d The homeowner ultimately paid $8,500 to the contractor, and the contractor completed the driveway. But 18 months later, the driveway developed holes and began spalling. The cement began decaying and disintegrating, particularly where road salt sat on the driveway. The contractor offered to replace certain sections of the driveway, but the homeowner instead sued the contractor in small claims court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the hearing, the homeowner called his father to testify. His father was a concrete contractor years ago and drove a concrete mixer. He testified that the concrete likely did not receive enough pure cement, or that it was otherwise washed out, and that the contractor likely did not use a good mix.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The contractor\u2019s owner testified that there were no issues with the workmanship, but he could not explain why the concrete was failing. The concrete supplier also testified at trial, claiming the driveway issues were no party\u2019s fault and stating there is no way to know if the concrete is good or bad as it comes out of a mixer. He further testified that road salt and weather likely caused the damage to the driveway.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The trial court ultimately held that the contractor failed to perform in a workmanlike manner, which was a breach of the agreement. The court awarded the homeowner $6,000 (the limit in small claims court), plus 8% interest per annum.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The contractor appealed on two grounds:<\/p>\n\n\n\n