Court Opinion

ID: 9703810
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:08:19.336301+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:51.775413
License: Public Domain

Murphy, J.
(dissenting in part). I concur in so much of the majority opinion as finds no error in the award of $175 to cover the damage to the living room wall in the plaintiffs’ home. I disagree that there is any finding of fact or conclusion of law to sustain the inclusion of the amount of $84 for dam*485age to the water service. Nor does the memorandum of decision help. Nowhere in the finding or in the memorandum does the trial court find that any damage to the water service was caused by the blasting. The court found that the water pipe was leaking but studiously avoided finding the cause of the leak. A trial judge should no more speculate than a jury.