This is an appeal from the denial of a motion for new trial upon the judgment entered by the State Court of Bullock County on a jury verdict for general contractor, appellee-plaintiff Garrett Machine & Construction, Inc. “Garrett Machine”, and against subcontractor, appellant-defendant Robert E. Canty Building Contractors “CBC”. By the underlying action seeking damages and OCGA § 13-6-11 attorney fees, Garrett Machine claimed breach of an oral contract to erect the cinder block walls of a new restaurant which it had contracted to build for Shellhouse in Statesboro. CBC timely answered and counterclaimed for the work it had completed on the project. At trial, the state court denied CBC’s motion for a directed verdict as to special damages or in the alternative for a partial directed verdict as to OCGA § 13-6-11 attorney fees. Following the close of the evidence, the argument of counsel, and the state court’s charge, the jury returned its verdict awarding Garrett Machine special damages in the amount of $40,480 and $7,000 in OCGA § 13-6-11 attorney fees. Garrett Machine’s claims for damages and attorney fees in the trial court were $84,068 and $13,707.39, respectively. CBC appeals, contending that the state court erred in denying its motion for a directed verdict and arguing that Garrett Machine had failed to prove its damages for no evidence of the fair market value of the corrective masonry work it contracted for after requiring CBC to leave the job site and that Garrett Machines was not a proper party as to “some” of the damages it claimed. Further, CBC contends that the state court erred in denying it a partial directed verdict upon the jury’s award of OCGA § 13-6-11 attorney fees in that these were not based upon evidence of bad faith and could not be attributed solely to the damages claims on which Garrett Machine prevailed.
1. No error obtained upon the state court’s denial of CBC’s motion for a directed verdict upon Garrett Machine’s claim for special damages, the verdict of the jury and the state court’s judgment thereon as supported by some evidence of record. A directed verdict is proper only if there is no conflict in the evidence as to any material issue and the evidence introduced, with all reasonable deductions therefrom, shall demand a particular verdict. In determining whether any conflict in the evidence exists, the court must construe the evidence most favorably to the party opposing the motion for directed verdict. The standard used to review the grant or denial of a directed verdict is the any evidence test. Citations omitted. Nunley v. Nunley , 248 Ga. App. 208 546 SE2d 330 2001. Habel v. Tavormina , 266 Ga. App. 613, 615 1 597 SE2d 645 2004. “The question before the trial court is not whether the verdict and judgment of the trial court were merely authorized, but is whether a contrary judgment was demanded.” Pulte Home Corp. v. Woodland Nursery &c. , 230 Ga. App. 455, 456 2 496 SE2d 546 1998; Singleton v. Terry , 262 Ga. App. 151, 155 3 584 SE2d 613 2003; see also OCGA § 9-11-50 a.
