Baxter v. State Highway Dept., 40172

Decision Date18 September 1963
Docket NumberNo. 40172,No. 2,40172,2
Citation132 S.E.2d 863,108 Ga.App. 324
PartiesEdwin L. BAXTER et al. v. STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals

John E. Wiggins, Ringgold, Pittman & Kinney, R. Carter Pittman, Dalton, for plaintiffs in error.

Eugene Cook, Atty. Gen., Carter Goode, Richard L. Chambers, Asst. Attys. Gen., Atlanta, Joe B. Tucker, Ringgold, for defendant in error.

The ground of the motion on which the judge granted a new trial complained of the following charge as being argumentative, confusing, and misleading to the jury and erroneous and prejudicial because there were no contentions by pleadings or evidence that the condemnee was entitled to consequential damages: 'Now, in this case, Gentlmen, there appears to be no claim of any decrease in the market value of the property not taken, unless it could be said that the access rights to that Project I-75 Superhighway could be considered consequential damages; if you want to consider that in that respect, you might do so, to the extent of taking into consideration whatever that limitation of access rights or the condemnation of the entire access, that is, ingress to and egress from that Project I-75; if you want to to consider that as consequential damages, you might do so. However, other than that, there is no claim by the condemnee in this case that there are consequential damages to the remainder of the property. The condemnee contends that he is entitled to what he contends is the fair, just compensation for the property actually taken; and on the other hand the Highway Department does not contend in this case that there are any consequential benefits to the remainder of the land not taken. The reason that I am saying that to this jury is the fact that in most condemnation proceedings there do appear claims of consequential benefits and claims of consequential damages, and I simply stated that; I hope that having stated it, doesn't confuse the jury or anything of the sort. My purpose in referring to it was to take that out of it, so that you would fully understand that the question that you are to determine in this case is not consequential benefits or consequential damages, that is, to the remainder of the land not taken; but the fair market value of the property actually taken in the case.' The verdict awarding damages for the taking of 4.827 acres of land for the purpose of constructing a limited access highway was in the amount of $65,000.

Syllabus Opinion by ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Dent v. Memorial Hosp. of Adel
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • December 4, 1998
    ...704(2), 252 S.E.2d 205 (1979); State Hwy. Dept. v. Hilliard, 112 Ga.App. 498, 499(1), 145 S.E.2d 824 (1965); Baxter v. State Hwy. Dept., 108 Ga.App. 324, 132 S.E.2d 863 (1963). The dissent opines that each criticism of the nursing staff's actions was an assertion of professional negligence ......
  • Mote v. Mote
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • April 8, 1975
    ...506, 508, 74 S.E.2d 491, 492.' State Highway Dept. v. Stewart, 104 Ga.App. 178, 183, 121 S.E.2d 278, 282. Accord: Baxter v. State Highway Dept., 108 Ga.App. 324, 132 S.E.2d 863. c). Being thus in a state of confusion as to how to determine the death car's owner, the jury was confronted with......
  • Flexible Products Co. v. Ervast
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • March 13, 2007
    ...704(2), 252 S.E.2d 205 (1979); State Hwy. Dept. v. Hilliard, 112 Ga.App. 498, 499(1), 145 S.E.2d 824 (1965); Baxter v. State Hwy. Dept., 108 Ga.App. 324, 132 S.E.2d 863 (1963). That the jury charge was in conflict and confusion as to liability upon the advice of counsel, the grant of a new ......
  • State Highway Dept. v. Baxter
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • February 23, 1965
    ...The present trial followed an affirmance by this court of the grant of a new trial by the superior court. Baxter v. State Highway Department, 108 Ga.App. 324, 132 S.E.2d 863. Witnesses for the condemnor testified as to the value of the property as agricultural land, and gave opinions of its......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT