Department of Transp. v. Dent
| Decision Date | 22 April 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 53706,No. 2,53706,2 |
| Parties | DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION v. L. T. DENT et al |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
William A. Zorn, Jesup, Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Michael E. Hobbs, Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, for appellant.
Bennet, Gilbert, Gilbert, Whittle, Harrell & Gayner, John M. Gayner, III, Brunswick, for appellees.
The appellees own an auto dealership cum gas station in Jesup. In order to widen a street, the appellant condemned a small portion of the land upon which this business is located, and, dissatisfied with the appellant's appraisal, the appellees appealed to a jury for a determination of just and adequate compensation. The jury returned a verdict considerably in excess of the appellant's offer, and this appeal follows from the judgment entered thereon.
1. The appellant enumerates as error the admission in evidence of testimony by the appellees' accountant as to the reduction in the value of the appellees' business caused by the taking. In examination by the trial judge out of the presence of the jury, the witness made it clear that the business losses to which he testified were based primarily on severe inconveniences temporarily caused by the widening of the road. The witness stated that when construction was completed, business would probably return to normal.
The admission in evidence of the accountant's testimony constitutes reversible error. Damages caused by mere temporary inconvenience due to the construction of the project for which the property was taken is not a proper element for consideration in determining just and adequate compensation for condemned realty. MARTA v. Datry, 235 Ga. 568, 580, 220 S.E.2d 905 (1975); State Hwy. Dept. v. Hollywood Baptist Church, 112 Ga.App. 857(2), 146 S.E.2d 570 (1965).
2. The appellant contends that the trial court erred in admitting testimony of two of the appellees' witnesses dealing with restoration costs of certain improvements which would allegedly be damaged by the taking. The appellant claims that the witnesses' opinions as to restoration costs did not take depreciation of the building into consideration.
Restoration costs alone are not necessarily the measure of compensation for damaged property. Where the value of the property increases because of the restorations, then a depreciation factor should be applied to put the property owner back in the same condition that existed prior to the taking. State Hwy. Dept. v. Murray, 102 Ga.App. 210(1), 115 S.E.2d 711 (1960). Here, however, there was evidence from which a jury could find that the restorations about which the two witnesses testified did not leave the property in better condition than it was in prior to the taking. Therefore, testimony as to the costs of the restoration was not erroneously admitted.
3. The trial judge instructed the jury that it could...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dendy v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, 63591
...S.E.2d 466. Compare State Highway Department v. Thomas, et al., 106 Ga.App. 849, 851(2), 128 S.E.2d 520; Department of Transportation v. Dent, et al., 142 Ga.App. 94(2), 235 S.E.2d 610; Department of Transportation v. Kendricks, 150 Ga.App. 9, 12(5), 256 S.E.2d 610. In Zeeman, supra, this c......
-
Macon-Bibb County Water & Sewerage Authority v. Reynolds
...value" and "unique value." See Housing Authority of Etc. Atlanta v. Troncalli, 111 Ga.App. 515, 518-519, 142 S.E.2d 93; DOT v. Dent, 142 Ga.App. 94(3), 235 S.E.2d 610; DOT v. West, 160 Ga.App. 368, 369, 287 S.E.2d 85; Housing Authority Etc. of Atlanta v. Southern Railway Co., 245 Ga. 229, 2......
-
Dixie Highway Bottle Shop, Inc. v. Department of Transp.
...has proved that the condemned property has some unique or peculiar relationship to the condemnee and his business. Dept. of Transp. v. Dent, 142 Ga.App. 94, 235 S.E.2d 610; MARTA v. Ply-Marts, Inc., 144 Ga.App. 482, 484, 241 S.E.2d 599. Whether or not property is unique in considering evide......
-
Department of Transp. v. George
...in determining the fair market value of the remainder. See Buck's Svc. Sta. v. Dept. of Transp., supra.; Department of Transp. v. Dent, 142 Ga.App. 94(3), 235 S.E.2d 610 (1977). If the business is totally destroyed, evidence of the resulting loss can be considered by the jury as a separate ......
-
A Critical Review of Law of Business Loss Claims in Georgia Eminent Domain Jurisprudence - Charles M. Cork, Iii
...1 Ga. App. 25, 26, 57 S.E. 1087, 1089 (1907). 44. See infra Part IV.D. 45. Williams, 124 Ga. App. at 647, 185 S.E.2d at 618. 46. 142 Ga. App. 94, 95, 235 S.E.2d 610, 612 (1977). 47. See supra text accompanying note 37. 48. 148 Ga. App. 242, 250 S.E.2d 854 (1978). 49. Id. at 245-46, 250 S.E.......