Kuitems v. Covell

DORAN, J.

The present controversy arose out of a written contract under which appellant roofing contractors agreed to and did install a roof covering for the respondents on a flat roof deck which had been erected by respondents on an owner-built home, the agreed price therefor being $487.12. The complaint, in a first count, alleges faulty workmanship by appellant contractors, and that the roofing material used was insufficient and not of a proper type, even if properly installed, to withstand the pressure of static water resulting from rainfall, the flatness of the roof being known to appellants. A second count sets forth that in the matter of the selection of materials and method of installation, respondents asked for and relied upon the skill and knowledge of appellant contractors. The complaint prays for damages in the sum of $8,900.

Appellants filed a cross-complaint seeking to foreclose a mechanics’ lien, asking judgment for the contract price of $487.12. The answer filed by appellants consists of a general denial together with an allegation that “the roof structure . . . was negligently and improperly designed and erected by plaintiffs. That plaintiffs did not provide adequate slope from the drainage of said roof structure, but . . . caused same to be erected so that it was concave to such an extent that it was impossible for same to drain naturally. Furthermore plaintiffs

[484]

caused the drainage outlets for said roof structure to be designed and constructed on the upper side of the roof and not on the lower side of same. That plaintiffs well knew these defects and did not communicate same to defendants.”

The trial court found that “defendants installed roofing material and slabs insufficient and not of proper type” for a fiat roof, by reason of which the roof covering “failed to hold water, and in the rains occurring in the months of December, 1948 and January, 1949, water leaked in and through the said roof covering, causing warping and permanent water staining of the hardwood floors . . . warping of window sills, and waterlogging and staining of inside plaster, warping of the roof deck, and water damage to the building generally,” plaintiffs’ damage being assessed at $1,825.

It was further found that “plaintiffs informed defendants that the roof-deck . . . was approximately flat, and that the defendants would be required to provide drains for said roof ”; that the roof material used was manufactured by defendants and was “the only type of roof covering they installed”; that defendants were roof specialists upon whose judgment plaintiffs relied, and that defendants had recommended the type of roof covering used. The trial court also found that defendants “were negligent in not making a proper inspection of said roof-deck before applying said roof covering”; that defendants did not provide proper drains, and that “said roof covering as installed by the defendants was of no value to plaintiffs. ’ ’