Forbes v. Town of Orange
| Decision Date | 07 March 1912 |
| Citation | 85 Conn. 255,82 A. 559 |
| Parties | FORBES v. TOWN OF ORANGE. |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Gardiner Greene Judge.
Action by John P. Forbes against the Town of Orange for special damages from change of grade in a highway. From a judgment on a verdict for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
See also, 84 Conn. 577, 80 A. 710.
James D. Hart, for appellant. Philip Pond, for appellee.
The plaintiff introduced evidence tending to prove these facts For several years he has owned a farm of land with a frontage of about 2,000 feet on the Milford Turnpike, in the town of Orange, on which land stands his dwelling house, barns, and other buildings. Between January 1, 1906, and January 1, 1909, the defendant changed the grade of this highway, cut it down about four feet immediately in front of the plaintiff's residence and driveway to his house and barn, and also changed the traveled part of the highway so that it was about eight feet nearer the plaintiff's house. That the effect of these changes was to cause an unsightly bank in front of the plaintiff's residence, to destroy two large basswood trees, to make the access to his premises difficult and dangerous, and that in other ways the change materially reduced the market value of his property. The defendant denied the plaintiff's claims, and also answered that the benefits accruing to the plaintiff from the construction of the road and the change of grade greatly exceeded the damages which he sustained. During the trial, the court and the jury at the request of both parties viewed the premises. The jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiff to recover $800 damages, and the defendant moved for a new trial because the verdict was against the evidence, and excessive. This motion the trial court denied.
The appeal assigns error in overruling this motion, in the charge to the jury, and in the exclusion of a question upon the cross-examination of a witness. The principal question involved in the appeal is whether the damages assessed by the jury are excessive and against the evidence in the case.
It should be observed that the court and jury inspected the premises in question. Personal inspection of real estate, made by the trier at the request of the parties in a civil case, is evidence of its location and condition.
It appears by the record that nine witnesses testified as to the depreciation in value of the plaintiff's premises by reason of this change in grade. Their estimates as to his damages were from $900 to $3,000. Upon the other hand, several witnesses for the defendant testified to the effect that there was little or no damage to the plaintiff's property by the change of grade, and that his property had been materially benefited thereby. When the questions of fact in issue material to the judgment are disputed, and must be determined from conflicting testimony of which there is sufficient, such questions must be submitted to the jury. Atwood v. Ricker, 83 Conn. 171, 172, 76 A. 306.
In actions of this character the law does not attempt to fix any precise rules for ascertaining what is just compensation, but from the necessity of the case leaves the assessment of damages to the good sense and unbiased judgment of the jury. When it appears that the verdict has been fairly obtained and has been confirmed by the presiding judge, such verdict must stand, unless the damages awarded are so plainly disproportionate to the injury shown to have been sustained as to indicate that some mistake was made by the jury in the application of legal principles, or to warrant the belief that the jury must have been influenced by passion, partiality, or prejudice. Burr v. Harty, 75 Conn. 127, 129, 52 A. 724; Birdseye's Appeal, 77 Conn. 623, 625, 60 A. 111; Bradbury v. South Norwalk, 80 Conn. 295, 300, 68 A. 321; Wyeman v. Deady, 79 Conn. 414, 416, 65 A. 129, 118 Am.St.Rep. 152, 8 Ann. Cas. 375; Read v. Atlas...
To continue reading
Request your trial