Opinion ID: 1765925
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: did the trial court err in awarding plaintiffs hederman and wilson damages as a result of appellants' actions?

Text: The award of $12,700.00 and $2,755.50 is challenged on the basis that the evidence of damages is speculation based upon assumption. The chancellor's finding that Hederman and Wilson suffered actual damages at the hands of the appellants is a finding of ultimate fact, and our scope of review requires that we reverse only in case of manifest error. Lovett v. E.L. Gardner, Inc., 511 So.2d 1346, 1349 (Miss. 1987). A review of the record shows that there is substantial evidence to support the chancellor's finding. Testimony is undisputed that the excavation work performed by B & S Services proximately destroyed the shrubbery and flowers previously existing on the Hederman and Wilson parts of the alleyway. This excavation work was done without the prior consent of the adjoining landowners. Finally, there is credible testimony concerning the emotional toll that the actions of the appellants took on the plaintiffs. There is substantial evidence to support the finding of actual damages. This damage is traceable to the actions of the appellants because there is joint and several liability among those who direct and commit a trespass for the damages which proximately result therefrom. Doom v. Thompson, 35 So.2d 535 (Miss. 1948). The excavation work was done on behalf and at the direction of Randall Saxton and R & S Development. The joint and several liability of the appellants was established, and the lower court did not err in assessing actual damages against the appellants. Liability cannot be escaped on the grounds that the proof as to the amount of damages, if any, is too uncertain to justify the lower court's award. It is well recognized that Mississippi is equally firm in its determination that a party will not be permitted to escape liability because of the lack of a perfect measure of damages his wrong has caused. Cf. Koehring Co. v. Hyde Construction Co., 254 Miss. 214, 178 So.2d 838, 853 (1965). Johnston v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America, 727 F.2d 548, 551 (5th Cir.1984). Here, the cause of the damage is certain. The extent of damages is uncertain because the defendants acted wrongfully and without prior consent or warning in destroying the plaintiff's ornamental plants and trees. The lower court recognized the landowners' difficult burden when it admitted a landscape architect's estimate over objection of Saxton. In proving damages to the Hederman portion of the alleyway, photographs were introduced into evidence which depicted the Hederman portion of the alleyway just prior to the excavation work. An expert landscape architect, accepted by the court and Saxton, then prepared an estimate of restoration based upon the photograph, and on personal observation of the site. This estimate was $12,700.00 to restore the Hederman portion of the alley to its before condition. As to the Wilson part of the alleyway, their daughter testified without objection to the various plants and trees in this area. Based on the witness' testimony as to the number, size, and kind of shrubs and trees, the expert was asked a hypothetical question and estimated the cost of restoration to be $2,755.50. These amounts were awarded by the court to Hederman and Wilson as actual damages. Since the best the landowners could do under the circumstances is a fair and reasonable estimate, or a just and reasonable inference, the weight, credibility and worth of the architect's estimates rested solely with the chancellor. Cain v. Mid-South Pump Co., 458 So.2d 1048, 1050 (Miss. 1984). It is a simple concept that a wrongdoer should bear the risk of any uncertainty which his wrong has created, and such a rule has poignant application in such a case as this because not only did the appellants cause the damage, they destroyed the very evidence which would have enabled the landowners to determine the number, size and kind of shrubs and trees cut with any precision. Nichols v. Stacks, 485 So.2d 1034, 1038-39 (Miss. 1986). There is no merit to this assignment of error.