Court Opinion

ID: 9709575
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 03:51:23.023733+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:50.233547
License: Public Domain

ROBERTSON, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in the majority opinion as it relates to the first two issues. I respectfully dissent as to the third issue on damages.
Under the facts of this case, it is apparent that the so-called aesthetic, or personal, damages were a matter in litigation. I do not see reversible error in the award of $3600 damages under the theory espoused in Rust v. Guinn (1982), Ind.App., 429 N.E.2d 299, where damages were sanctioned for personal losses sustained by a landowner in a nuisance action. The evidence in this case supports the award made by the trial court. I would affirm the award of damages.