Opinion ID: 1668262
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Recovery under general tort principles

Text: Under Louisiana Civil Code article 2315, a person may recover damages for injuries caused by a wrongful act of another. [8] Article 2315 provides: [e]very act whatever of man that causes damage to another obliges him by whose fault it happened to repair it. A person injured by trespass or fault of another is entitled to full indemnification for the damages causes. In Coleman v. Victor, 326 So.2d 344 (La.1976), we explained the theory behind the principle of restoration of property damaged by another under general tort principles. Specifically, we stated: In assessing damage to property, generally, courts have considered the costs of restoration as the proper measure of damage where the thing damaged can be adequately repaired.... No mechanical rule can be applied with exactitude in the assessment of property damage under La.Civ.Code art. 2315. Each case must rest on its own facts and circumstances as supported by the proof in the record. Coleman, 326 So.2d at 346-47. While the primary objective is to restore the property as nearly as possible to the original state, at times restoration is not possible and is sometimes not cost effective. In the case sub judice, the district court awarded plaintiffs damages which exceed the value of their property. In his reasons for judgment, the trial judge found that plaintiffs' emotional ties to the land justified an award greater than the value of the property. Specifically, he stated: [t]he Hornsbys have a significant emotional tie to this land. They spent significant considerable time in these woods. They referred to this particular section of the land where these trees were removed from as the oak flat. They planned to place a home site and a camp near this area known asthat they knew as the oak flat. And further, they planned to transmit this land to their descendants while maintaining it in pristine condition. I find that Mr. Guidry planned to allow his daughter to use the portion of his land from which trees were removed as a home site and he planned to occupy the eastern portion of his land in his retirement years which are fast approaching. For those reasons, I find that the Hornsbys and the Guidrys had reasons that are personal to them for restoring the land to its original condition. And I also find that there's reason to believe that the plaintiffs will, in fact, make these repairs with the money collected from this judgment. Thus, the district court judge determined that plaintiffs had significant emotional ties to their land which justified an award of $224,000 for the Hornsbys and $154,000 for the Guidrys, which exceeded the value of the land. Keeping the manifest error standard of review in mind, we find that the record reveals insufficient evidence was presented which would justify the award of the district court. Barry Hornsby and his brother, Larry, purchased their land in 1994 from their grandparents' estate for $19,932.00. Barry testified that when he was a child, he and his cousins would play on the property every Sunday. However, since purchasing the property in 1994, Barry admits that the land has primarily been used for cattle grazing. He stated that there are no utility lines, water lines, or structures on the land. Moreover, no one has taken any steps to facilitate the building of any structures or camps. Larry Hornsby also testified that he does not have a homestead exemption on the property and he confirmed Barry's statement that there are no water lines or electricity on the property. Larry also stated that, since their purchase of the property, no homes, sheds or structures have been built on the land. Both brothers testified of their intent to build, at a future date, but failed to produce any tangible proof or documentation to support their intent. Douglas Guidry purchased his land from his wife's aunt in 1976 for $750.00. On the land is a pipeline which runs throughout. Mr. Guidry testified that he bought the land because of the oak trees, planned to build a house on the east side of the land and dig a big pond and allow his daughter to build a pond on the west side. However, Mr. Guidry admits that he has not been on the property in fifteen years and has not made any improvements to the land. He stated that he has allowed the Hornsbys to graze the land in previous years and allowed chicken trees to grow on the majority of the property. Where objective evidence so contradicts the witness's story, or the story itself is so internally inconsistent or implausible on its face, that a reasonable fact finder would not credit the witness's story, the court of appeal may well find manifest error or clear wrongness even in a finding purportedly based upon a credibility determination. Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840, 845 (La.1989). We find the district court's finding that the testimony supported the award was manifestly erroneous and not supported by the facts presented at trial. Expert testimony was presented at trial regarding the value of plaintiffs' property. Based upon that testimony, it is clear that the value of the property was disproportionate to the damage award rendered by the district court. Under the precepts enunciated in Roman Catholic, restoration costs which exceed the value of the property, are justifiable only when there are reasons personal to the owner. In this matter, plaintiffs' testimony reveals their intent to develop the land at some point in the future. We do not find that plaintiffs' self-serving testimony of their inchoate intent to develop the land at some undetermined future point is sufficient to justify recovery of restoration costs in excess of the actual market value of the land and the trees cut. Consequently, we find that the district court's reliance on Roman Catholic in awarding plaintiffs restoration costs exceeding the market value of the land and trees under the principles of general tort law was in error.