We granted John Thurmond & Associates, Inc.’s JTA petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals to determine whether a plaintiff in a breach of contract and negligent construction case must prove fair market value of the property as a prerequisite to any recovery. See Kennedy v. John Thurmond & Assoc. , 286 Ga. App. 642 649 SE2d 762 2007. For the reasons that follow, we hold that fair market value need not be proven in every construction defect case and affirm. David Kennedy is a homeowner whose home was substantially damaged by fire. JTA is a residential restoration/construction company hired by Kennedy to make repairs to his home for an agreed upon contract price of $311,156. Kennedy subsequently discovered problems with the construction and initiated an action against JTA for breach of contract, breach of warranty, negligent construction, and negligence. At trial Kennedy presented evidence of the cost of repairing the allegedly faulty construction estimated at $751,632.1 After the close of evidence, the trial court granted JTA’s motion for a directed verdict on the ground that Kennedy did not present evidence of the fair market value of his home after the allegedly faulty repairs. Kennedy appealed and the Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that evidence of the fair market value of the home after the repairs were made was not required. Kennedy , supra at 644.
1. We begin our analysis of the proper measure of damages in this case by acknowledging that damages are intended to place an injured party, as nearly as possible, in the same position they would have been if the injury had never occurred. See BDO Seidman v. Mindis Acquisition Corp. , 276 Ga. 311 1 578 SE2d 400 2003; Redman Dev. Corp. v. Piedmont Heating &c. ,128 Ga. App. 447 197 SE2d 167 1973. Juries, therefore, are given wide latitude in determining the amount of damages to be awarded based on the unique facts of each case. See Atlanta Metallic Casket Co. v. Hollingsworth , 107 Ga. App. 594 131 SE2d 61 1963 court has no power to review jury verdict absent evidence its finding was due to prejudice or bias, or was influenced by corrupt means. See also Rafferzeder v. Zellner , 272 Ga. App. 728 613 SE2d 229 2005 questions of value are peculiarly for determination of fact finder where there is any data upon which fact finder may exercise its own knowledge and ideas.
