Court Opinion

ID: 9573231
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:50:19.578312+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:38:21.065827
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
1. The Department of Transportation argues that we "apparently either overlooked or misconstrued the case of State Highway Department v. Chance, 122 Ga. App. 600.” This court neither overlooked nor misconstrued Chance. The case was accented in the brief of counsel — even though they misconstrued its holding. Counsel’s brief stated Chance "held where the jury’s verdict exceeds the highest evidence given during the trial, the verdict must be reversed and is excessive as a matter of law.” In Chance this court held: "Although a jury is not bound by the exact limits of the evidence it would appear that this portion of the verdict is unduly generous and it may be indicative of undue bias.” We discern a distinct difference between that which was held and that which is now argued. The holding of Chance is consistent with our present holding. In Chance the court used the figures and testimony of the witnesses of "a market value of $500 per acre . . . and estimated a depreciation in value of 75% to the south tract,” in arriving at a maximum depreciation figure of $16,875 to the south tract, whereas the jury awarded $18,000. As the consequential damages to the south tract was $1,125 higher than the highest estimate, we held the verdict "excessive as matter of law . . .”
This court refuses to get into a "numbers” distinction involving various decisions of this court, but where the court is charged with misconstruing a decision we would *276like for it to be noted that the jury award in Chance, $1,125 higher than the highest estimate, was only 6.6% over the high estimate. In the main opinion we have cited precedents which predated Chance. For example, in Housing Authority &c. of Decatur v. Schroeder, 113 Ga. App. 432, supra, a verdict of $21,750 was $1,590 higher than the highest estimate of $20,160. Thus, although the award was 7.8% higher, those three judges did not find that higher percentage excessive as a matter of law under the facts of that case. Also, in Garner v. Gwinnett County, 105 Ga. App. 714, supra, the verdict of $500 was $50 below the lowest estimate — or 10% below the lowest amount. This court found that the 10% difference between the verdict and estimate did not reflect undue bias as a matter of law. Chance did not reflect consideration of these precedents or the rules cited in our opinion in the instant case for an appellate court reversing a jury verdict being excessive as a matter of law. All cases applied the same rule, but under the facts of each case each judge arrived at his decision.
2. The Department of Transportation also states that this court "apparently overlooked the fact that the figures testified to by the condemnee’s witnesses, which were exceeded by the jury’s verdict in the sum of approximately $6,000.00, included figures for consequential damage to the residence located on the condemned property. This is apparent because the court’s decision , . . states that 'It strains credulity beyond the breaking point to accept the opinions of the state’s expert witnesses who testified that locating an interstate highway 55 feet from a person’s residence would not result in any diminution of value of that person’s home.’ ”
The main opinion cited the range of the evidence — from the low of $18,100 by the state’s expert, to that of $28,528.75 of Mr. Drigger’s expert — which included the depreciated value of the house. Furthermore, we also included the depreciated value of the house in the $30,253.75 maximum combination of all estimates. We cited the testimony of the state’s expert as to lack of diminution of value of a residence when an interstate highway’s right of way is placed 55 feet from the home of an individual as showing a possible reason for the jury’s *277failure to accord credence or credibility to estimates of the state’s experts.
3. All of the grounds enumerated in the motion for rehearing are without merit.

Motion for rehearing denied.