Case Name: DeBenneville v. Philadelphia, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1902-10-13
Citations: 204 Pa. 51
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 310
Parties: DeBenneville v. Philadelphia, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 204
Pages: 51–52

Head Matter:
DeBenneville v. Philadelphia, Appellant.
Road law—Damages—Burden of improvements—Experts—Evidence.
In determining the amount of damages for injuries to land by reason of the opening of a street through the land, the jury may take into account that the market value of the land may be affected injuriously by reason of the cost of future street improvements, but they cannot give a verdict for such street improvement as a substantive item of damages.
Argued Jan. 15, 1902.
Appeal, No. 310, Jan. T., 1901, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., June T., 1895, No. 462, on verdict for plaintiff in case of James S. DeBenneville and Mary M. Chichester v. City of Philadelphia. Before McCollum, C. J., Mitchell, Dean, Fell, Brown, Mestrezat and Potter, JJ.
Affirmed.
Appeal from award of jury of view, assessing damages in the matter of the opening of Broad street from Green lane to Chelton avenue.
At the trial expert witnesses for the plaintiff after having testified as to the difference in the value of the property before and after the opening of the street, stated on cross-examination that they had taken into consideration 'the fact that the burden of future street improvements would injuriously affect the market value of the property. The defendant moved that the whole of the testimony of such witnesses should be stricken out, which motion was overruled. [1,2,8, 8]
Plaintiff presented the following point:
4. The jury may consider and take into account the testimony of the plaintiffs that the market value of the land involved in this suit would be affected injuriously by reason, among other things, of the cost of street improvements that might be charged upon the land. Answer : That is affirmed. That is correct. Each party, I will do them the justice to say, in this case have put their points very ingeniously. You have a right to. take into consideration the testimony, but you have not a right to give a verdict for those street improvements as a substantive item of damages.
Verdict for plaintiff for $6,000, upon which judgment was entered for $5,000, all above that amount having been remitted.
Errors assigned were (1, 2, 3, 8) ruling on evidence, quoting the bill of exceptions ; (11) above instruction, quoting it.
Francis L. Wayland, assistant city solicitor, with him David Lavis' and John L. Kinsey, city solicitor, for appellant.
A. H. Wintersteen, for appellee.
October 13, 1902 :

Opinion:
.Per Curiam,
The judgment in this case is affirmed,