Brock v. Department of Transp., 58295
| Decision Date | 23 October 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 58295,58295 |
| Citation | 151 Ga.App. 905,262 S.E.2d 156 |
| Parties | BROCK et al. v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Douglas Parks, Gainesville, for appellant.
Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Samuel L. Oliver, Gainesville, for appellee.
In this appeal from a verdict and judgment in a condemnation proceeding, the individual owner and corporate lessee appeal from the judgment entered on a jury verdict awarding just and adequate compensation for the partial taking of a piece of property at the corner of Sycamore and Broad Streets in Gainesville. The jury found there were no recoverable consequential damages or lost profits and returned a verdict only for the value of the land taken in fee and the temporary construction easement.
1. Appellants urge that the trial court erred in giving, over objection, the following charge:
The first sentence of this charge is a direct quotation from Marta v. Datry, 235 Ga. 568, 575, 220 S.E.2d 905 (1975). Appellants contend that even though the charge states a well established and correct principle of law, it is inapplicable because Datry was not an eminent domain case but an equity action brought by a property owner seeking to enjoin continuation of MARTA construction until he was paid just and adequate compensation for the taking of his property rights.
The Supreme Court held in Datry that Marta v. Datry, supra at 577, 220 S.E.2d at 911.
Not only are these standards relevant to the instant case, the giving of this charge was clearly beneficial to the appellants because it set forth a basis upon which they could be awarded consequential damages. They cannot now complain since the charge was in their favor. Kickasola v. Jim Wallace Oil Co., 144 Ga.App. 758, 760(6), 242 S.E.2d 483 (1978) (U.S. cert. den., 436 U.S. 921, 98 S.Ct. 2272, 56 L.Ed.2d 764).
The second portion of the charge is based upon the Supreme Court's holding in State Hwy. Bd. v. Baxter, 167 Ga. 124, 133(1), 144 S.E. 796 (1928). This rule of law is also relevant in any case where the jury is to determine the basic issue of the amount of just and adequate compensation due to the condemnees. Appellants concede in their brief that it "could possibly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dendy v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, 63591
...streets, which constituted an element of consequential damages to the remaining land not taken (See Brock, et al. v. Department of Transportation, 151 Ga.App. 905, 906, 262 S.E.2d 156); hence, the trial judge did not err in striking the testimony of the two witnesses as to an amount of dama......
-
Department of Transp. v. Hillside Motors, Inc.
...from the facts of this case. However, the giving of an identical charge was found not to constitute error in Brock v. Dept. of Transp., 151 Ga.App. 905(2), 262 S.E.2d 156. Likewise, this court in Big-Bin Dispos-All v. City of Valdosta, 172 Ga.App. 746, 748, 324 S.E.2d 501 held that "[i]n or......
-
Department of Transp. v. Baxley, A89A1133
...of the partial condemnation. The rule as to specificity of the amount of loss (see Mauney, supra, and Brock v. Dept. of Transp., 151 Ga.App. 905, 906(2), 262 S.E.2d 156 (1979)) would not control. Instead, the testimony would be admissible to show diminution in the value of the property as p......
-
Department of Transp. v. Vest, s. 62107
...information or data sufficient to enable them to estimate the amount of the loss with reasonable certainty. Brock v. D. O. T., 151 Ga.App. 905, 906(3), 262 S.E.2d 156 (1979). Generally speaking, this means that they must be provided with figures establishing the business's projected revenue......