Opinion
[No. 202, September Term, 1969.]
Decided February 11, 1970.
APPEAL — Review — Appellant Failed To Preserve Any Question For Review. The Court held that no question was presented by the developer for review as the homeowner offered evidence of negligence and damages which was not objected to, the developer made a motion for a directed verdict at end of plaintiff's case but after it was denied waived the motion by offering testimony and not renewing motion at conclusion of all the evidence and court's charge to jury was not objected to by either side. pp. 740-741
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County (MELVIN, J.).
Suit by Harry Gunther, Jr. and Nora A. Gunther, his wife, against Gray-Will Construction Co., Inc., a real estate development firm, for negligence which caused flooding of their home property. From a judgment entered on the jury's verdict for the plaintiffs, the company appeals.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
The cause was argued before HAMMOND, C.J., and BARNES, FINAN, SINGLEY, SMITH and DIGGES, JJ.
Mrs. Anne Kay Kramer, with whom was Reuben Shiling on the brief, for appellant.
Court did not hear argument for appellees. Charles L. Shuman on the brief for appellees.
A jury found persuasive the evidence of a homeowner who is an engineer and of his wife (the appellees), and of a qualified realtor that the negligence of a real estate development firm (the appellant) had from time to time caused flooding of the home property of the appellees which had damaged them to the extent of $7,000. The appeal by the developer from the judgment entered on the jury's verdict asks us to hold that the episodes of flooding and the resulting damages were not attributable to any act or omission of the developer and that there was no evidence before the jury which could support its finding of the amount of damages suffered.
Counsel for the developer at the trial — who was not counsel on appeal — preserved nothing for this Court to pass on. The homeowners offered evidence of negligence and damages which was not objected to. The developer made a motion for a directed verdict at the end of the plaintiffs' case but, when it was denied, waived the motion by offering testimony, and did not renew the motion at the conclusion of all the evidence. The court's charge to the jury was not objected to by either side. No question is now presented to us for review.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.