Ps sued D for negligence and breach of warranty in installing a polyurethane foam roof on their house. The evidence showed that the manufacturer of this particular polyurethane foam product specified that the thickness of foam applied to the roof must be one inch minimum and preferably one-and-one-half inches or more, except for edges, which may be tapered off. Ps produced pieces of the middle of their roof showing that the foam applied to several areas of the roof was no more than one-half inch thick and that the foam was unevenly applied, with some areas having a thickness less than one-half inch and some being only a fraction more than one-half inch thick. Ps produced the testimony of an expert roofer who stated that the area immediately underneath the Ps' roof was wet, where water had soaked through the polyurethane, and that there were gravel pieces under the foam. Ps got the verdict from the jury, and D appealed from the denial of his motion for j.n.o.v., claiming that because Ps did not produce expert evidence of the standard of care against which to measure the skilled services of D.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.