Court Opinion

ID: 9578417
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:45:03.673753+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:24:47.117878
License: Public Domain

Hall, Presiding
Judge, dissenting. The chief issue on this appeal is whether it was necessary to have dollar value evidence on the issue of diminution in order to submit the ' counterclaims to the jury. The tenant contends that this is an appropriate type of situation for an estimate by the jury based on its own experience and enlightened conscience; and that the submission of an opinion estimate by the tenant would- be. largely a futile gesture as the jury might completely disregard it.
As might be expected, there is a dearth of authority on this question. Ordinarily, when one alleges dollar value damages, one offers some evidence, no matter how arbitrary. Common sense tells us, however, that m matters of ordinary experience such as the value of residential housing, a jury will make its own evaluation. A close analysis of the measure of damages in this type of case reveals that while we may state it as diminished rental value, we are really talking about the discomfort and inconvenience of living without certain important facilities and with certain major defects. This is not amenable to expert opinion evidence in the way the difference between a two and'a three bedroom house would be. A reputable realtor would most likely disclaim any familiarity with rental values of properties with the defects alleged here. The only evidence available would be the tenant’s estimate of what his misery was worth to him.
■ This is closely analagous to the ephemeral injuries to property rights caused by such things as foul odors and noise. In the only case discovered closely on point (stagnant *678water) this court held: "Since the damages incurred by the plaintiff, under his pleadings and testimony, consisted of an injury to the value of a tenancy at will, to. his person through sickness, and to his purse through loss of services of his wife and minor children, it was not necessary that he should submit figures in dollars and cents, so as to show his loss with arithmetical accuracy. As to such matters the enlightened conscience of the jury is the guide. The court properly instructed the jury, in substance, that the plaintiff was entitled to recover for the actual damages inflicted by the injury, and that they should estimate the amount by their enlightened consciences from the facts submitted.” Towaliga Falls Power Co. v. Sims, 6 Ga. App. 749, 762 (65 SE 844).
The "enlightened conscience” test was first applied to an injury to property in that same year. The plaintiff had sued for damages resulting from the maintenance of a nuisance—a fertilizer factory which gave forth foul odors and gases.- It was contended that the jury would have no measure by which it could ascertain damages. This court stated that "while it may be difficult at times to arrive at proper criteria, for the mathematical ascertainment of the exact amount of damages, this difficulty affords no reason for denying the efficienct existence of the rule of law . . . The rule announced in [Code § 105-2003] that in some torts the amount of damages is left to 'the enlightened conscience of impartial jurors,’ while there confined probably to torts growing out of wrongs different from that complained of in the case at bar, is nevertheless sound in principle, and in reason is just as applicable to the maintenance of a nuisance of the kind here complained of . . . The jury should not guess, nor arbitrarily fix the damages, but should estimate reasonably.” Jones v. Royster Guano Co., 6 Ga. App. 506, 516 (65 SE 361). See also Baltimore & Potomac R. Co. v. Fifth Baptist Church, 108 U. S. 317 (2 SC 719, 27 LE 739).
The counterclaims here are based on. breach of the landlord’s statutory duty, to repair (Code § 61-111) which gives. *679the tenant a cause of action for damages. Lewis & Co. v. Chisholm, 68 Ga. 40. While Towaliga Falls and Royster Guano were both nuisance cases, the measure of damages is the same (diminution in value) and the type of damages are so similar that requirements of proof ought to be governed by the same rule.
The majority of this court chooses not to follow Judge Powell’s opinion in Towaliga Falls and Judge Russell’s opinion in Royster Guano. Both of these opinions reflect a realistic rather than a mechanical or legalistic approach to the problem.
I am authorized to state that Judge Stolz concurs in this dissent.