Court Opinion

ID: 9543751
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:48:54.674763+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:11:07.221370
License: Public Domain

CARTER, J.
I dissent.
I think it is clear that the evidence is sufficient to support the award of damages and a new trial on that issue should not be ordered.
The majority opinion proceeds upon the theory that plaintiff was not entitled to the cost of removing more dirt than was actually dumped on her property even though it would require the removal of the additional amount to effectively remove the amount dumped and that there is no evidence that the removal of the additional amount was necessary to effectively remove the amount dumped.
The first proposition is manifestly untenable. It is the same as saying in a case where plaintiff was entitled to damages for an injury to the motor of his car that he could recover for the damage to the motor but not the expense of repairing it where part of the cost of repair was the removal and replacement of other parts although necessary to repair the motor. The evidence clearly supports the necessity of removing the additional soil.
The majority holds that there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding that defendant Grosso dumped 3,184 yards of soil on plaintiff’s property and hence damaged her in the sum of $4,367.08, being arrived at by computing the cost of removal of the dirt at $1.37 per yard. There is enough evidence, on the theory that while the total yardage of soil dumped on plaintiff’s land may have been 1,570½ instead of 3,184, it would require the removal of the latter amount because to remove effectively the 1,570 yards, an additional amount, up to the 3,184 yards, must be removed because of the sliding of other soil onto plaintiff’s land as the result of removing the 1,570 yards.
*234While Cook testified that 1,570 yards had been dumped on plaintiff’s land, plaintiff’s expert (Willis) on removal of the soil and the cost thereof, testified:
“Q. Now, at my request, Mr. Willis, did you make an estimate of the amount of filled ground represented on this map that I have referred to, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit C-2, that lies between the Connor property line or the red line and the mark with the dotted line entitled ‘Toe of spill from road’?”
‘‘The Court: What end?
‘‘Mr. Stanton: Well, all the ground enclosed within that curved line and the red line.
“A. Yes, I did, but in addition to that I went back to the natural contour of the land. You couldn’t excavate it to your property line without sliding hack of your property line, so we went back of the property line to the original contours of the hill.
“Q. Why did you do that, Mr. Willis? A. To excavate at a vertical line at the property line, you couldn’t hold the material above it, you would slide down into the property.
“Q. In other words, in making your estimate of yardage, you had in mind the removal of that dirt. Is that correct? A. That is right.
“Q. Then if you removed right along the property line, it is your best estimate that the other dirt would fall into place and that would have to be removed as well? A. That is right.
“Q. Now, you were asked to estimate the amount of cubic yards of dirt necessary to remove along that property line, were you not? A. That is right.
“Q. What was your estimate of the total number of cubic yards of earth ? A. 3184 cubic yards.
“Q. That includes not only the amount of earth in the fill itself, but also the yardage of earth which you estimate would fall into the fill, were the present fill in the Connor property removed? A. Yes.” (Emphasis added.)
‘ ‘ The Court : I take it from your testimony so far, Mr. Willis, that what you are conveying is that it would require the removal of 3184 yards to restore the Connor property to its original ground level.”
That testimony is at least reasonably susceptible of the construction that in order to remove the soil dumped on the land by Grosso it would be necessary to remove the soil to the original contour of the land because otherwise if you removed only the part dumped, other soil would slide down *235leaving soil on the property the same as before; that to remove all of the soil necessary to restore plaintiff’s land, 3,184 yards must be removed. This is in accord with the finding of the trial court.
This being the state of the record, there is ample evidence to support the finding of the trial court as to the amount of damages suffered by plaintiff and the judgment should, therefore, be affirmed.