Kunkle Water & Electric, Inc. v. Nehai Tonkayea Lake Ass'n, 639 S.W.2d 177 (1982)

Respondent contends in argument that the giving of Instruction No. 8 allowed the jury to award appellant “any damages” it sustained, saying that appellant introduced *179evidence of additional items of damage beyond labor and material furnished (properly submitted in Instruction No. 9, supra), i.e., hotel bills and meals for employees, and per mile charges on vehicles. The argument would have validity if the jury returned a verdict including amounts for those items, but it did not do so. Appellant’s documentary evidence showed $18,029.07 for labor and materials furnished, the amount prayed therefor in the petition (exclusive of $1,038.81 sales tax claimed). The jury’s verdict was for $18,029.07, and no more as for principal due. The error in giving Instruction No. 8 was cured by the verdict, and respondent does not contend that the amount thereof is excessive. Compare Matulunas v. Baker, 569 S.W.2d 791, 796, et seq. (Mo.App.1978), a warranty of habitability case in the sale of a new home in which MAI 4.01 submitted a diminution in value theory. The jury did not follow plaintiffs’ evidence of decrease in market value, but returned a verdict for the exact costs for labor and material in effecting repairs. The court found no prejudicial error on those facts.