Burke County v. Renfroe

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Burke County v. Renfroe

13 S.E.2d 194, 64 Ga. App. 395, 1941 Ga. App. LEXIS 74

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 15, 1941

Docket28781.

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 13 S.E.2d 194 (Burke County v. Renfroe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Burke County v. Renfroe, 13 S.E.2d 194, 64 Ga. App. 395, 1941 Ga. App. LEXIS 74 (Ga. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Felton, J.

The court did not err in overruling the general and special demurrers.

No error appears from any of the grounds of the amendment to the motion for new trial.

The only question in this case for determination is whether, under the allegations of the petition and the facts of the case, the evidence was sufficient to authorize a verdict for an amount which the jury considered necessary, from the evidence, to put the damaged building in as good condition as it was before the injury complained of; the contention of the plaintiff in error being that the measure of damages was the difference in the value of the premises before and after the injury. The petition alleged and the facts *396 showed that the Mills Construction Company dug a ditch immediately in front of the plaintiff’s building, so near that the excavation caused the front wall of the building to cave in, wrecking the front wall and wrenching and springing the side walls. There was evidence as to what it would cost to replace the building as it was before the damage. The court charged that such cost was the measure of damages, and there was no exception to the charge. The general rule is that where property is damaged for public purposes the measure of damages is the difference between the market value before and after the damage. No measure is fixed by the legislature, and the courts have laid down the general rule for the reason that that measure is generally the fairest and most direct way of ascertaining the damage and compensating the injured party. There are exceptions to the rule, however, and where the above measure will not compensate for the loss, or where there is a more accurate and direct method of fixing the amount of the loss, the courts will follow the method affording adequate compensation or the more accurate and direct method. While we have found no precedent in this State for fixing the damage in such cases as this, cases are cited which apply the rule applied in this case to private injuries where the measure of damages is generally the same as in cases of damage to property for public purposes. Harrison v. Kiser, 79 Ga. 588 (4 S. E. 320); L. & N. R. Co. v. Kohlruss, 124 Ga. 250 (52 S. E. 166); Empire Mills Co. v. Burrell Engineering &c. Co., 18 Ga. App. 253 (89 S. E. 530); City of Macon v. Hawes, 27 Ga. App. 379 (108 S. E. 479). We think the rules in these cases apply to the case at bar. The court did not err in overruling the motion for new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens, P. J., and Sutton, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Felton, J.

The court did not err in overruling the general and special demurrers.

No error appears from any of the grounds of the amendment to the motion for new trial.

The only question in this case for determination is whether, under the allegations of the petition and the facts of the case, the evidence was sufficient to authorize a verdict for an amount which the jury considered necessary, from the evidence, to put the damaged building in as good condition as it was before the injury complained of; the contention of the plaintiff in error being that the measure of damages was the difference in the value of the premises before and after the injury. The petition alleged and the facts *396 showed that the Mills Construction Company dug a ditch immediately in front of the plaintiff’s building, so near that the excavation caused the front wall of the building to cave in, wrecking the front wall and wrenching and springing the side walls. There was evidence as to what it would cost to replace the building as it was before the damage. The court charged that such cost was the measure of damages, and there was no exception to the charge. The general rule is that where property is damaged for public purposes the measure of damages is the difference between the market value before and after the damage. No measure is fixed by the legislature, and the courts have laid down the general rule for the reason that that measure is generally the fairest and most direct way of ascertaining the damage and compensating the injured party. There are exceptions to the rule, however, and where the above measure will not compensate for the loss, or where there is a more accurate and direct method of fixing the amount of the loss, the courts will follow the method affording adequate compensation or the more accurate and direct method. While we have found no precedent in this State for fixing the damage in such cases as this, cases are cited which apply the rule applied in this case to private injuries where the measure of damages is generally the same as in cases of damage to property for public purposes. Harrison v. Kiser, 79 Ga. 588 (4 S. E. 320); L. & N. R. Co. v. Kohlruss, 124 Ga. 250 (52 S. E. 166); Empire Mills Co. v. Burrell Engineering &c. Co., 18 Ga. App. 253 (89 S. E. 530); City of Macon v. Hawes, 27 Ga. App. 379 (108 S. E. 479). We think the rules in these cases apply to the case at bar. The court did not err in overruling the motion for new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens, P. J., and Sutton, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 S.E.2d 194, 64 Ga. App. 395, 1941 Ga. App. LEXIS 74, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burke-county-v-renfroe-gactapp-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack