444 A.2d 495
No. 81-208Supreme Court of New Hampshire Hillsborough
Decided March 10, 1982
1. Municipal Ordinances — Building Code — Compliance The issuance of a certificate of occupancy is not conclusive on the issue of compliance with a town building code, and the certificate merely provides evidence that the town building inspector believed that the structure was in compliance.
2. Contracts — Construction Contracts — Breach In a trial for breach of contract for failure to perform some of the construction of a house in a workmanlike manner, where the plaintiffs presented expert testimony that stairs did not comply with the town building code, were negligently designed, and although a certificate of occupancy was issued by the town building inspector, which was evidence of compliance with the building code but not conclusive, the defendant’s expert admitted that the code was susceptible to various interpretations, there was sufficient evidence, where the jury had a view of the premises and was able to weigh the testimony introduced, to sustain the verdict for the plaintiffs.
Page 245
Stephen E. Borofsky, of Nashua, by brief and orally, for the plaintiffs.
Robert J. Moses, of Amherst, by brief and orally, for the defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Following a view of the premises and a trial (Flynn, J., presiding), a jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs in the amount of $13,000.
The claims against the defendant, a builder who (according to his own testimony) has keen involved in hundreds of construction projects, were that he breached his contract to build a house for the plaintiffs by failing to perform some of the construction in a workmanlike manner. The principal dispute centered on a set of stairs that the plaintiffs alleged were inadequate. The stairs were constructed with a nine-inch tread, but, because the angle between the tread and the riser was less than ninety degrees, the distance between the leading edge of one tread and a plane perpendicular to the leading edge of the next tread was only six inches.
The defendant has preserved only two issues for appeal. The first issue, in essence, is whether the issuance of a certificate of occupancy by a town building inspector precluded a finding of liability, as a matter of law. The second issue is whether there was sufficient evidence to support the verdict.
[1] We hold that the issuance of a certificate of occupancy is not conclusive on the issue of compliance with a town building code. The certificate of occupancy merely provides evidence that the town building inspector believed that the structure was in compliance. The plaintiffs presented expert testimony that the stairs did not comply with the code. Given the conflict at trial over the question of compliance with the building code, we need not decide whether actual compliance with the building code would preclude recovery by the plaintiffs. See generally Lemery v. O’Shea Dennis, Inc., 112 N.H. 199, 200-01, 291 A.2d 616, 617-18(1972). [2] Furthermore, there was sufficient evidence introduced at trial for the jury to conclude that the stairs were constructed in an unworkmanlike manner. The plaintiffs’ expert testified that, according to his interpretation of the building code, the stairs were negligently designed. The defendant’s expert admitted that the code was susceptible to various interpretations. The jury had a view of the premises and was able to weigh the testimony introduced at trial. It is clear that there was sufficient evidence to sustain
Page 246
the verdict. See Rogers v. Public Service Co., 121 N.H. 956, 959, 437 A.2d 263, 265-66 (1981).
Affirmed.
KING, C.J., did not sit.