Court Opinion

ID: 9588441
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:34:30.615181+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:29.647656
License: Public Domain

Deen, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
I fully concur with all that is said in Division 1, but must respectfully dissent as to Division 2. While I agree that the cost of landscaping could not be recovered because there was no evidence of such *351costs, I also believe that the jury was properly instructed “not to consider the cost of reconstructing the bridge or landscaping the property in determining an amount of consequential damages.” “[A]ll elements and uses of the land may be taken into consideration to determine the market value of the land taken and the consequential damages to the land not taken. However, under this sort of procedure, a witness may not be permitted to testify separately as to the value of each element.” Southern R. Co. v. Miller, 94 Ga. App. 701, 704 (96 SE2d 297) (1956); Gaines v. Dept. of Transp., 140 Ga. App. 741 (231 SE2d 829) (1976). See also Dept. of Transp. v. Willis, 165 Ga. App. 271, 272-273 (299 SE2d 82) (1983), and Dept. of Transp. v. Brooks, 153 Ga. App. 386, 390-391 (265 SE2d 610) (1980), for discussions of the proper method of determining damages in condemnation cases.
Decided November 25, 1986
Rehearing denied December 18, 1986
J. Corbett Peek, Jr., J. Garland Peek, for appellants.
Albert Sidney Johnson, for appellee.
I am authorized to state that Presiding Judge Birdsong and Judge Benham join in this dissent.