Court Opinion

ID: 9589764
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:48:29.739063+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:54.560580
License: Public Domain

Marshall, Judge,
dissenting.
I find myself in full agreement with Divisions 1 (a), (b), and (c) and Division 2 of the principal decision. However, I cannot concur with the majority’s view as to the certainty of damages established by the evidence in this case, as set forth in Division 1 (d).
I am in agreement with the basic position advanced by my brothers that the jury is not bound by the testimony of an expert. Thus it is espoused that inasmuch as appellee prayed for $50,000 general damages and the damages returned by the jury only amounted to $10,000, the jury’s award is well within the realm of the general damages sought. It is urged that though the trial court limited the general damages to the diminution of value of the real estate, the jury was not bound by the evidence offered by appellee’s expert that the property suffered $4,000 to $5,000 loss of market value. It is said that the jury could look to some 60 pictures offered in evidence and use that pictorial evidence to reach its verdict so far different from the value testimony offered by the expert. The difficulty I have with this position is that the pictures were offered to illustrate the position of the ditch, the flow of water, to illustrate the swale, to show silting and similar conditions. Appellee testified that all these conditions had been rectified and offered evidence as to special damages to offset the cost of rectifying the problems illustrated by the photographs. At no time was any evidence offered connecting the pictures to a diminution of market value of the real estate. In my opinion we are faced with a jury reaching a monetary verdict of damages absent any reasonable or sufficient guidelines to aid them in reaching their decision. I have no dispute with the conclusion that appellee is entitled to compensation for the damages caused by the improper diversion and water flow in this case. It is my belief, however, that a jury must have adequate guidelines and supportive evidence to reach a sustainable verdict. Bendle v. Ortho Mattress, Inc., 133 Ga. App. 575 (211 SE2d 618); Big Builder, Inc. v. Evans, 126 Ga. App. 457 (191 SE2d 290); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Austin, 120 Ga. App. 430 (170 *407SE2d 840);Leggett v.Brewton, 104 Ga. App. 580 (122 SE2d 469). In my opinion there was a failure of proof in this case in this regard. I would affirm the verdict insofar as it establishes liability as to the appellant but reverse insofar as it sets damages and return the case for the limited purpose of establishing general damages, if any, by competent evidence.