Cleveland Boat Service, Inc. v. City of Cleveland

• Decision Date: 11 July 1956
• Docket Number: No. 34702,34702
• Citation: 136 N.E.2d 274,165 Ohio St. 429
• Parties: , 60 O.O. 85 CLEVELAND BOAT SERVICE, Inc., Appellant, v. CITY OF CLEVELAND, Appellee.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 429

165 Ohio St. 429

136 N.E.2d 274, 60 O.O. 85

CLEVELAND BOAT SERVICE, Inc., Appellant, v. CITY OF CLEVELAND, Appellee.

No. 34702.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

July 11, 1956.

K. J. Ertle, Cleveland, for appellant.

Ralph S. Locher, Director of Law, Joseph H. Crowley, Joseph F. Smith, Ernest J. Halambeck and Richard O. Horn, Cleveland, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Although the judgment entry of the Court of Appeals states no specific grounds for the reversal, a reading of the opinion discloses the reasons therefor. And, of course, if any one of the grounds for reversal is valid, the judgment of the Court of Appeals must be affirmed.

Under the holdings of this court in at least two cases, the trial court should have allowed the city of Cieveland, if it could, to show as a defense (1) that the lease held by plaintiff on the filled in and artificially formed land north of the 1914 shore line of Lake Erie is subservient and must yield to the superior and paramount title of the state of Ohio, as trustee for the people for public uses, and (2) that the construction of the roadway was in aid of navigation. See State v. Cleveland & Pittsburgh R. Co., 94 Ohio St. 61, 113 N.E. 677, L.R.A.1917A, 1007; and State ex rel. Squire v. City of Cleveland, 150 Ohio St. 303, 82 N.E.2d 709.

The Court of Appeals found that the trial court committed reversible error in admitting evidence of the actual replacement cost of certain items of property belonging to plaintiff, which items had been destroyed or damaged in the construction of the roadway, when evidence along this line should have been limited to the true value of such items at the time they were destroyed or damaged.

The admission of evidence as to loss of profits by plaintiff as well as evidence relating to damages sustained by reason of the inconvenience of travel encountered subsequent to the completion of the roadway was also held erroneous.

In the first instance, loss of profits is too speculative and uncertain for accurate and satisfactory measurement, In re Appropriation by Supt. of Public Works, 155 Ohio St. 454, 459, 99 N.E.2d 313, 317; 18 American Jurisprudence, 899, Section 259, and, in the second instance, inconvenience of travel occasioned by being required to follow a more circuitous route due to a completed highway improvement is not a proper subject for a damage award, State ex rel. Merritt v. Linzell, 163 Ohio St. 97, 126 N.E.2d 53.

Likewise, special charges, covering the measure of damages...