Court Opinion

ID: 9419564
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 22:50:11.423317+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:18.929533
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Douglas,
concurring in part.
I agree that respondent is entitled to compensation for fixtures and permanent equipment destroyed or depreciated in value by the taking. I likewise agree that, re*385spondent is entitled to a further increase in its award. The award granted is less than the rental which it is under a continuing obligation to pay the lessor. The United States is. occupying the premises and paying about 40$ a square foot while respondent continues to pay 42$ to the landlord. In these special circumstances it is difficult to see how a lessee receives that just compensation to which he is entitled unless the United States pays the full rental. It would indeed be a novel rule of law which’allowed the Government to oust a person from a portion of his leasehold, occupy the premises, but pay only a part of the rent, leaving the balance to be paid by him who though ousted holds’ the balance of the term. But I do not believe we should allow the cost of removing personal property from the premises to be reflected in the award. If this were a fee interest which was being condemned, we would exclude all such expenses from the award. Consequential losses or injuries resulting from the taking are not compensable under the Fifth Amendment. Mitchell v. United States, 267 U. S. 341; United States v. Miller, 317 U. S. 369, 376; United States v. Powelson, 319 U. S. 266, 281-283. It takes an Act of Congress to make them so. We should adhere to that rule. If we allow consequential damages to be shown here, I do not see how we can refuse such an offer of proof when a 10-year lease, a 99-year lease, or a fee interest is condemned. If cost of moving is relevant to market price in one case, I cannot say it is irrelevant in the other. And if one type of consequential damage is relevant to market price, I do not see why almost any type may not be. If we allow the offer of proof in the present case, the result will be to let consequential damages in under a new guise. . If we take that step' we demonstrate that hard cases do indeed make bad law. We give the Constitution an interpretation which promises swollen verdicts which no Act of Congress can cure.
Mk. Justice Black joins in this opinion.