Opinion ID: 2588470
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Was the Award of Damages Supported by the Evidence?

Text: The district court awarded the District damages in the sum of $127,245.41. The Mussells challenge various aspects of that damage award. The Mussells argue that they were only liable for the cost of restoring the Kennedy Lateral to its original condition as an old, earthen ditch and not for the cost of the piping, which they contend constituted an improvement from the Lateral's original condition. The District was entitled to recover from the Mussells the reasonable cost of restoring the Lateral so that it could transmit water. The Mussells did not show that it would be feasible simply to replace the dirt excavated by Mr. Mussell, and the trial testimony was that such repair would not be feasible. The district court found that the proposed retaining wall would continue to leave the Kennedy Lateral vulnerable to failure and [t]he piping of this section of Kennedy Lateral was the most expedient and cost effective fix for the loss of the sub-adjacent support. These findings were supported by substantial, competent evidence. Therefore, the district court did not err in awarding damages based upon the reasonable cost of piping the Kennedy Lateral. The District used its own employees and equipment in repairing the Kennedy Lateral, although it did have to rent some equipment. The district court awarded as damages the labor cost of the District employees, including benefits, and the rental cost of the District equipment. The Mussells contend that they should not be liable for the cost of the District employees because they were full-time, salaried employees and the District did not incur any additional cost for their salaries and benefits. Likewise, they contend that they should not be liable for the rental value of the District equipment because the District did not actually incur the cost of renting such equipment. The Mussells cite no authority to support their argument. The Mussells were liable for the reasonable cost of restoring the Kennedy Lateral. They were liable regardless of whether the District performed the repairs with its own employees and equipment or hired someone else to do the work. The district court found, The use of NMID's [District's] personnel and equipment permitted the construction of the pipeline at a lesser total cost and in a shorter time frame than if NMID had attempted to use and [sic] outside contractor. The district court did not err in including as damages the reasonable value of the employee and equipment time used by the District to restore the Kennedy Lateral. The Mussells challenge the district court's inclusion in the damage award of the cost of replacing an existing bridge with Class V pipe. The downstream end of the pipeline terminated at an existing bridge, which the District removed and replaced with Class V pipe that was then covered with dirt to make a bridge. The district court found, The existing bridge had to be re-constructed in order to handle the increased water speed and pressure caused by the piping of this section of the Kennedy Lateral. That finding was supported by substantial and competent evidence, and so the district court did not err in including that cost in the award of damages. The Mussells contend that the district court should not have awarded damages for the entire length of the pipeline because it was longer than the length of the Kennedy Lateral impacted by Mr. Mussells' excavation. The District extended the upstream end of the pipeline about 130 to 140 feet beyond the Mussells' property line to connect with an existing concrete check box. Its water superintendent testified that the District did so because it was necessary to attach the upstream end of the pipeline to a structure that included a headwall and weed racks. He also stated that had the District constructed a separate structure for the upstream end of the pipeline, it would also have had to put in extensive riprap of rock material between that structure and the existing check box. The water superintendent opined that the cost of building a new structure for the upstream end of the pipeline would probably have been the same as the cost of extending the pipeline to the existing check box. The Mussells did not offer evidence to the contrary. The evidence was likewise uncontradicted that the pipeline was extended downstream to the bridge in order to use the bridge abutments to dissipate the additional energies generated from the increased velocity of water flowing through the pipeline rather than the earthen lateral. There was substantial and competent evidence supporting the district court's decision to award damages for the entire length of the pipeline. The Mussells also challenge the district court's awarding as damages the cost for fill and leveling of the St. Clair property. The Mussells' adjoining landowner Mr. St. Clair gave the District permission to install the pipeline along the northwest side of the Lateral channel, in essence enlarging the District's easement on his property. The Mussells argue that the cost for fill and leveling of the St. Clair property was not incurred as a result of any alleged injury, but was merely incurred as a result of the District's unilateral gratitude toward Mr. St. Clair for his cooperation in allowing the relocation of the ditch on his property. The Mussells do not cite anything in the record supporting that argument, however. They simply cite the testimony of the District's water superintendent that the District purchased fill from Mr. St. Clair that was used to backfill around structures, to fill in the ditch after the pipe was laid, and to fill depressions. It is not clear whether the Mussells are contending that the cost of putting fill dirt around the structures and covering the pipeline should not be awarded as damages or that there was some other filling and leveling done on the St. Clair property that should not have been awarded as damages. If it is the former, the district court did not err in including those costs as damages. If it is the latter, the Mussells have not pointed to sufficient facts in the record showing that the alleged error occurred. The District claimed as damages a total of $18,680.08 for 1,207.5 hours of employee time spent restoring the Kennedy Lateral. During cross-examination of the District's water superintendent, the Mussells brought out that the District's claimed damages included 30 hours of time spent by three employees (Gary Butcher, Jerry Hilton, and Mike James) on February 14, 2001, even though their time sheets indicated that they worked that day both on the Kennedy Lateral and on another project. The total amount claimed as damages for ten hours of labor by each of these employees was $177.94 for Mr. Butcher, $127.21 for Mr. Hilton, and $127.21 for Mr. James. With respect to Mr. James, his time sheet indicates that during his ten-hour shift he hauled five loads to the Kennedy Lateral and three loads to the other project. Apportioning three-eights of his time to the other project, $47.70 of his labor cost should not have been awarded as damages. With respect to Messrs. Butcher and Hilton, there is nothing in the record indicating how their time could be apportioned between the Kennedy Lateral and the other project, and therefore none of their labor cost for work done on February 14, 2001, should have been awarded as damages. There is nothing in the district court's findings of fact and conclusions of law indicating that it took these errors into account when awarding damages. Thus, the damages awarded must be reduced by a total of $352.85 ($177.94 + $127.21 + $47.70). The damages awarded also included the cost of constructing a road along the pipeline. There had been a road along the northeast side of the Kennedy Lateral, but it did not extend the full length of that portion of the Lateral that was adjacent to the Mussells' property. There was access from a public highway to only one end of that road. Those using the road would have to turn around at its other end and drive back out to the highway. The pre-existing road had been formed simply by people driving along the side of the Kennedy Lateral. The District replaced that road with a wider, graveled road, both ends of which could be accessed from public highways. The District's ditchrider and water superintendent both testified that the new road was of better quality than the previously-existing road. The district court did not address the cost of constructing this new road in its findings of fact, and the District has not pointed to anything in the record that would justify replacing the previously-existing road with one that was longer, wider, and of better quality. Therefore, on remand the district court will have to determine the District's labor, equipment, and material costs in constructing the new road and deduct that sum from the damages awarded. The district court may take such additional evidence as is necessary to make that determination.