Court Opinion

ID: 9661456
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:39:31.720679+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:28.758097
License: Public Domain

Spencer, J.,
dissenting.
I dissent from the majority opinion herein for the reason that I believe instruction No. 14 given by the trial court was prejudicially erroneous. This instruction is set out in the majority opinion. I call specific attention to the only portion of that instrucion covering the amount of damage, which is the following: “The amount of its damages will be such a sum as you find from a preponderance of the evidence would be the reasonable cost of replacing said bridge with one of like kind and quality to take the place of one injured or destroyed by such negligence.”
Defendant’s bridge foreman, who was the only witness to testify to the extent of the damages to the bridge, injected the element of salvage into the case by testifying that the salvage recovered from the old bridge totalled $2,830.80. This evidence adduced by the defendant in its proof on the damages sustained under its counterclaim is undisputed in any way. It became an element to be considered in determining the extent of the damage sustained by the defendant on its counterclaim. The instruction clearly ignores the evidence on salvage, and under the instruction the jury would not be permitted to consider it. We must therefore assume that it was not considered by the jury in the verdict it returned for the defendant.
I would remand the cause to the district court with *205directions to require the defendant, County of Saline, to remit the sum of $2,830.80 from its judgment within 30 days, otherwise to grant a new trial.
Carter, J., joins in this dissent.