Opinion ID: 1614890
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: did the trial court err with respect to evidentiary rulings and jury instruction rulings concerning the measure of damages, if any, to which the plaintiff was entitled?

Text: The trial court granted Instruction P-5 which reads: The court instructs the jury that if you find for the plaintiff, Robert J. Keane, the measure of his damages would be the cost to repair his property so as to put it in the same condition as it was before it was damaged. The reasonable cost of repair can include such measures, as may be reasonable and necessary, to prevent Caney Creek from damaging his property again. As a further element of damage, if you find for the Plaintiff, Robert J. Keane, you may take into consideration the value of his property before the damage occurred in comparison to the value of the property after the damage occurred to ascertain what amount of permanent damage has been suffered by the plaintiff, if any. This instruction is an incorrect statement of the applicable law in that it permits recovery for both diminution in value and cost of repair without reference to the effect of repairs on value. We recently reviewed the issue of the appropriate measure of damages in cases such as this in Bell v. First Columbus National Bank, 493 So.2d 964 (Miss. 1986), we held that: Plaintiff can choose to prove either reasonable cost of replacement or repairs or diminution in value, and if he proves either of these measures with reasonable certainty, damages are allowable, so long as the plaintiff will not be unjustly enriched and the defendant does not demonstrate that there is a more appropriate measure of damages. In addition, landowners may recover special damages proved. These special or incidental damages are elements of damage separate, distinct, and independent of the depreciation of the value of the property or of the depreciation of the rental or usable value of the property. Included in the category of special or incidental damages are annoyance, discomfort, inconvenience, and sickness. 66 C.J.S., Nuisances § 175, p. 979. There may be others. City of Oxford v. Spears, 228 Miss. 433, 87 So.2d 914. Another element of damages to be considered in this case is the cost of making improvements to the creek. There is sufficient evidence that certain improvements would be necessary in order to prevent further damage to the property of appellee. While we have not dealt directly with this issue in this state, other jurisdictions and authorities have held that landowners who have made necessary and reasonable expenditures to prevent future damages to property could recover the cost. In Stratford Theater, Inc. v. Stratford, 140 Conn. 422, 101 A.2d 279 (1953), a landowner repaired a city sewer line on his property to prevent continued damage after the city failed in its duty to do so. That Court stated: Where the injury to real estate caused by a nuisance is not permanent and the owner takes reasonable measures to remedy the nuisance and prevent further injury, he is entitled to recover, as an element of damages, the reasonable cost of the measures he takes if that cost does not exceed the diminution of the rental value of his property which would take place were the nuisance allowed to recur, and if the measures taken do not enhance the value of the property over what it was before the injury occurred. City of Harrisonville v. W.S. Dickey Clay Mfg. Co., 8 Cir., 61 F.2d 210, 213, reversed on other grounds. 289 U.S. 334, 53 S.Ct. 602, 77 L.Ed. 1208; Murray v. City of Butte, 35 Mont. 161, 168, 88 P. 789; Tombari v. City of Spokane, 197 Wash. 207, 214, 84 P.2d 678; Belkus v. City of Brockton, 282 Mass. 285, 288, 184 N.E. 812; Emery v. City of Lowell, 109 Mass. 197, 201; see Ferrigno v. Odell, 113 Conn. 420, 427, 155 A. 639; Restatement, 4 Torts, § 930; 3 Sedgwick, Damages (9th ed.) p. 1958. 140 Conn. at 425, 101 A.2d at 281. Restatement 2d, Torts, § 930, also supports recovery of reasonable expenditures: (3) The damages for past and prospective invasions of land include compensation for       (b) either the decrease in the value of the land caused by the prospect of the continuance of the invasion measured at the time when the injurious situation became complete and comparatively enduring, or the reasonable cost to the plaintiff of avoiding future invasions. This rule is also set forth in 25 C.J.S., Damages § 49, which provides: As a general rule, a party is entitled to all legitimate and reasonable expenses necessarily incurred by him in an honest endeavor to reduce the damages flowing from or following the wrongful act, especially where his attempt to reduce the damages proves to be successful. Thus, a party may recover expenses legitimately incurred in attempting to prevent loss and damage to property, ... .       Expenses incurred in mitigating damages are recoverable only where they were prudently incurred, as a result of a fair exercise of judgment to make the damages less, and only where they were reasonably warranted by, and proportioned to, the injury and consequence to be avoided. We agree with the general rule that a landowner can recover reasonable and necessary expenses incurred in an attempt to prevent future damages, so long as those expenses do not exceed the diminution in value the property would suffer if the preventive measures are not undertaken. We affirm as to liability and remand this case to the trial court for a new trial as to damages in accordance with this opinion. AFFIRMED AS TO LIABILITY; REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR DETERMINATION OF DAMAGES. WALKER, C.J., and ROY NOBLE LEE and HAWKINS, P.JJ., and DAN M. LEE, PRATHER, ROBERTSON, SULLIVAN and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.