Opinion ID: 1531328
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: sufficiency of proof of damages

Text: The evidence with regard to damages is scanty. There are positive findings by the Chancellor (a) that there was an encroachment and (b) that there were damages. There is, however, no testimony whatever which we have been able to find as to the amount of damages sustained by the appellees, and the brief oral statement of the Chancellor which was recorded and included in the record does not show the basis upon which he computed damages at $300. In Levi v. Schwartz, 201 Md. 575, 95 A.2d 322, Judge Delaplaine, writing for the Court, said: The general rule is that a person whose real property has been injured by another's negligent and wrongful act is entitled to such damages as will compensate him for the injury or loss sustained. In Mullan v. Hacker, 187 Md. 261, 49 A.2d 640, Judge Delaplaine also said: There is no question that the measure of damages for property is the cost of restoring it, if it can be restored to the condition it was in before the injury without cost disproportionate to the injury; but where the cost of restoring is greater than diminution in the market value, the correct measure is the difference between the value of the property before the injury and after. See also Superior Construction Co. v. Elmo, 204 Md. 1, 102 A.2d 739, and the Restatement, Torts, § 929 and Comment b on Clause (a) i. Because of the complete absence of evidence as to the impairment of market value of the appellees' property we must remand the case for redetermination of the amount of damages to which the appellees may be entitled. Cf. Phillips Roofing Co. v. Maryland Broadcasting Co., supra . In accordance with the views above expressed, the portion of the decree is affirmed which holds that the appellant has encroached upon the property of the appellees and is liable for such encroachment, but that portion of the decree which fixes the amount of damages is reversed and the case is remanded for the ascertainment of the amount of the appellees' damages. Decree affirmed in part and reversed in part, and case remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion, the appellant and the appellees to pay their respective costs on this appeal.