Court Opinion

ID: 9864405
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 13:00:19.603428+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:11:48.469112
License: Public Domain

Opinion on rehearing, delivered February 21, 1927. Hart, C. J. Upon further consideration of this case, the majority of the court is of the opinion that the motion for a rehearing should be granted. This is an action for the assessment of damages for injury to plaintiff’s property in improving a street next to her property, which is also a State highway. It is true, as stated in our former opinion, that the cost of the retaining wall is not the plaintiff’s measure of damages. The record shows that the highway commissioners, in a praiseworthy effort to satisfy the plaintiff, expended about $325 in erecting a retaining wall to protect a shade tree in her yard. The record also shows that it would cost more than $2,000 to erect a retaining* wall which would prevent the embankment of the plaintiff’s property, abutting the improved street, from further caving in. While this proof was competent to show the damage to the plaintiff’s property, it was not the measure of her damages. In cases of this sort, the owner is entitled to recover the difference between the market value of her property before the taking or damage to it and the market value afterwards. St. L. Ark. & Tex. Ry. Co. v. Allen, 41 Ark. 431, and St. L. I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Theo. Maxfield Co., 94 Ark. 135. Every element that can fairly enter into the question of market value and which a business man of ordinary •prudence would .consider before purchasing the property should also be considered by the jury in arriving at the difference between the value of the property before and after the taking or damage to it. L. R. Junction Ry. v. Woodruff, 49 Ark. 381. Tested by this rule, we think the plaintiff, under the undisputed evidence, was entitled to recover some substantial amount of damages. Glenn D. Douglas, a civil engineer, was. a witness for the plaintiff. He.made a plat of her property showing the line of the embankment as it existed at the time of the survey. We quote from the abstract of the plaintiff his testimony as follows: “The upper line of .the embankment is over the property line and encroaches thereon. The under line is irregular and is practically outside the line — that is, south of the property line — at least this is practically so. The embankment has caved some more since I made my survey. This soil is slate or shale with an inclination to the north of approximately forty-five degrees. The encroachment on the plaintiffs’ lots by virtue of this excavation presents an irregular line and it extends onto the property from nothing to approximately two feet. “The surface of lot 7 is from ten to twelve feet above the street level. Lot 7 is higher above the surfacé of the street than lot 6. The street opposite lot 7 between curbs is 40 3/10 feet. The curb is six inches on each side. The north curb of the street is from three to three and a half feet to the embankment-.' 'The north curb line which the district' established is about two and a-lialf feet from the plaintiff’s property line. The plaintiffs’ property can be restored to them by building a retaining wall, and there is no other way whereby they can enjoy the use and benefit of their property which has been cut away. Prom the nature of this soil, and due to the weather, the embankment ‘will gradually slough or slide away.’ ” His testimony was corroborated by that of Mrs. Maude hi. Kirk. In addition, she stated that the embankment had caved up to the very edge of the terrace. She testified that there is always some sloughing away, which was much more when there was a hard rain. I). A. McCrea, one of the engineers for the road improvement district, which damaged the property, testified that the caving of the embankment was the result of blasting. According to his testimony, it is almost impossible in digging out rock excavations to control the effect of the powder. The reason is that the powder will follow the seams. The average encroaching upon the plaintiff ’s property occasioned by the excavations is about six inches. It might be in some places as much as a foot and six inches back of the retaining wall, which was afterwards filled in. The retaining wall was the one which the commissioners placed around the shade tree next to the edge of the embankment abutting the street in order to protect it. Other evidence shows that the embankment would still cave after hard rains. Thus, it will be seen that, according to the undisputed evidence, the plaintiff suffered some substantial amount of damages, and the jury failed to award her any amount. It is probable that the jury was misled by the instructions of the court which singled out her element of damages. In any event, the testimony above abstracted is not contradicted at all. It is true that the witnesses for the defendant testified that there was no difference between the market value of the property before and after the taking and ’damage. But, as we have already seen, the testimony, which we have copied above,, establishes a state of physical facts which show that the plaintiffs suffered some substantial amount of damages. It follóws that the verdict of the jury was contrary to the evidence, and the judgment must be reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial. Justices Wood and Smith dissent.