Court Opinion

ID: 9568279
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:02:05.115933+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:24:32.296096
License: Public Domain

Eberhardt, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
I cannot agree that there was no timely motion by the defendant for directed verdict. It appears from the record that a motion was made at the close of plaintiff’s evidence, and that the judge reserved a ruling on it and directed that the defendant proceed with its evidence. Witnesses then testified for the defendant, and by stipulation between counsel, special verdicts were prepared and submitted to the jury for determining whether (a) structural damage to the plaintiff’s house had occurred because it was built on fill dirt or because of water overflowing his land, and (b) whether there had been damage to rugs and a water heater from overflowing water. No general verdict was to be returned at that time, and it was contemplated that if the special verdicts favored plaintiff’s contentions further proceedings would be had before the jury.
The special verdicts were favorable to plaintiff’s contentions and the defendant produced additional witnesses who testified favorably to its contentions.
Counsel for the defendant then, at the close of all of the evidence, again moved for a directed verdict. (T. 201-203). It was argued at length. The court took it under consideration and on the following day sustained the motion.
*404Nor do I agree that the two special verdicts resolved all matters in the plaintiffs favor except the amount of the damages. Defendant had interposed defenses as to (a) the statute of limitation barring plaintiffs claim, or a substantial portion of it, (b) that the damage had resulted from an overflow of surface water from the streets due to heavy rains and that the city could not be held for a deficiency in the surface water drainage system since its maintenance had been held to be a governmental function. See City Council of Augusta v. Williams, 206 Ga. 558 (57 SE2d 593). Thus, there were issues as to whether the city was guilty of any culpable negligence for which there could be any recovery, and, if so, whether all of it or some substantial portion was barred by the statute of limitation, and if some portion, what portion, and what the cost of restoring the damage would be. These would require more than the special verdicts for determination.
All of the evidence was in, and counsel argued the legal points raised at length in connection with the second or last motion for directed verdict. It was urged that the damage had been occasioned by surface water which overflowed from the surface water drainage system due to heavy rains, and that the city could not be held for this. It was contended that the damage which plaintiff claimed and had shown was solely to the house and not to the land, and that he had failed to show the cost of making repairs or of restoring it to its condition at the time the damage occurred. See Morrow v. Johnston, 85 Ga. App. 261, 266 (68 SE2d 906), and cits. Plaintiff was seeking attorney fees and it was pointed out that no evidence as to the value of services rendered in handling the matter had been presented. See Fry v. Lofton, 45 Ga. 171 (3). With these matters the court agreed, and directed the verdict.
It is elementary that if a plaintiff fails to present evidence consonant with the applicable measure of damages so that the jury may make a verdict without speculation or conjecture he has failed in making out a case and a directed verdict is proper.
I am authorized to state that Presiding Judge Hall concurs in this dissent.