Court Opinion

ID: 9582803
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:31:31.405637+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:38:33.211406
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
The appellant cites Harrison v. Kiser, 79 Ga. 588 (8) (4 SE 320) to the effect that where an injury is done the plaintiffs house (as opposed to his land) the proper measure of damages is "whatever sum it would require to put the house in the condition in which it was before it was injured,” and not the difference in value before and after the injury. Frequently the two measures of damage are in evidence and are of substantially the same monetary value. Harrison refers to an injury to a house by removal of lateral support, a remediable defect. In the present case *58the structure was totally destroyed and the testimony was that it had a "negative value,” that is, it would cost more to remove the debris than the salvage was worth. In Mercer v. J. & M. Transportation Co., 103 Ga. App. 141 (2) (118 SE2d 716) where a similar charge was given and a similar objection made, the court, considering the differences between before and after value and cost of restoration of a building which could not be repaired because of the extent of destruction, held that to set the damages at replacement cost would "to our minds be ridiculous” as demanding an inflated measure of damages. We find no error, where the subsidiary structure was totally destroyed, in laying the damages in terms of market value before and after the loss.

Motion for rehearing denied.