Opinion ID: 1057370
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Motion for a View of the Premises

Text: ¶ 8. Defendant's second assignment of error was that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied defendant's motion for a view of the premises by the jury. Trial courts may allow the jury to view premises where necessary in actions for damages to real estate. 12 V.S.A. § 1948. And we are bound to indulge every reasonable presumption in favor of the [trial court's ruling], bearing in mind that the trial court was in a better position to determine the question of necessity. Viens v. Lanctot, 120 Vt. 443, 448, 144 A.2d 711, 715 (1958). The trial court denied defendant's pretrial motion for a view on the grounds that it would not be helpful to the jury. When the defendant renewed the motion in open court, the court again denied the request and explained to the jury that the court had decided against it for logistical reasons. During the bench conference that immediately followed, the court told the parties that it was stay[ing] by [its pretrial] ruling. ¶ 9. The thrust of defendant's argument is that the court abused its discretion in relying on logistical considerations to deny defendant's motion for a view. As it is clear on the record that the court denied defendant's motion initially, and at trial, based on its determination that it would not help the jury decide the case, defendant's argument is unavailing. The balance of defendant's claim is his conclusory statement  unsupported by citation to legal authority  that a view of the premises is intrinsic to a claim for aesthetic loss to real estate. Defendant's theory is that trial courts are in error whenever they preclude jury views of premises where aesthetic loss to real estate is at issue so long as that can be done without undue burden. The statutory language does not support defendant's position. See 12 V.S.A. § 1948 ( When on the trial of a cause . . . for damages to real estate . . . it is necessary that a view be had of the premises . . . the court may grant such view. . . . (emphasis added)). At trial, plaintiffs submitted numerous photographs of the trees and the property as evidence before defendant renewed his motion. The court's discretionary judgment that a view was not necessary is sustainable.