Georgia Power Co. v. Pittman
| Decision Date | 29 September 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 35838,No. 2,35838,2 |
| Citation | 92 Ga.App. 673,89 S.E.2d 577 |
| Parties | GEORGIA POWER COMPANY v. O. C. PITTMAN et al |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Whrere the power of eminent domain is exercised for the purpose of acquiring an easement over land for publicutility lines, the measure of damages is the value of the land or interest therein appropriated, plus the consequential damages to the remainder of the tract, to be ascertained by establishing the difference in value of such remainder immediately before and immediately after the taking. Where, as here, the court failed to charge the correct measure of damages as above set out, and in its place charged merely that damages which are the natural result of the act, although contingent to some extent, may be recovered, such charge, in connection with the omission above set out and with the rest of the charge as given, constituted error which might have misled the jury in assessing their verdict and accordingly demands reversal.
2. Where the judge charges the rovisions of Code § 38-107 relative to the elements to be considered in determining the preponderance of evidence, he should do so fully and completely.
Georgia Power Company sought to condemn a strip of land over lands owned by O. C. Pittman and Mrs. Reba P. DeLaPerriere, so as to have an easement thereon for the construction and maintenance of electric-power transmission lines. Appraisers were appointed, and an award was entered in favor of the owners for $360. The latter, being dissatisfied, appealed to the Superior Court of Jackson County, where on a trial a verdict was rendered in their favor for $2,250. The utility company thereupon filed its motion for a new trial on the general grounds, which was later amended by adding of four special grounds, and the denial of this motion is assigned as error.
Davis & Davidson, Jefferson, Erwin, Nix, Birchmore & Epting, Athens, for plaintiff in error.
E. C. Stark, Commerce, J. N. Rainey, Winder, for defendant in error.
1. Special grounds 4 and 5 and a part of special ground 7 complain of the charge of the court on the measure of damages, as set out below, the Code sections from which various portions of the charge originate being indicated in brackets by this court:
The court also charged that the company might condemn rights of way or other easements for said purposes upon first paying a just compensation to the owner of the land to be affected, and that 'the Constitution of the State of Georgia provides that private property shall not be taken or damaged for public purposes without just and adequate compensation being first paid.' Code Ann. s2-301, Const. art. 1, § 3, par. 1. No other charge was given relative to the measure of recovery.
The plaintiff in error contends that the court erred in not giving the jury any rule by which they could determine the measure of recovery in an eminent domain case; that the rule given pertained to the assessment of damages against a tortfeasor rather than the concept of value under the law of eminent domain; that the jury was not instructed to determine from the evidence the market value of the property taken and damages, if any, to adjacent property; and that they were left without instructions under which to ascertain the amount to which the condemnees might be entitled.
In a condemnation case the sole issue involved is the injury to the interest of the condemnee in the property involved. Georgia Power Co. v. Brooks, 207 Ga. 406, 409, 62 S.E.2d 183. No recovery may be had for the tortious acts, if any, of the condemnor,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dixie Highway Bottle Shop, Inc. v. Department of Transp.
...sentimental) to the condemnee alone. See Elbert County v. Brown, 16 Ga.App. 834, 837, 86 S.E. 651, supra; Georgia Power Co. v. Pittman, 92 Ga.App. 673, 675-676, 89 S.E.2d 577; Polk v. Fulton County, 96 Ga.App. 733, 736(4), 101 S.E.2d 736; Fulton County v. Cox, 99 Ga.App. 743, 748, 109 S.E.2......
-
Clarke County School Dist. v. Madden, 37639
...& Electric Co., 132 Ga. 537, 543(5), 64 S.E. 563; Central Georgia Power Co. v. Mays, 137 Ga. 120(1), 72 S.E. 900; Georgia Power Co. v. Pittman, 92 Ga.App. 673(1), 89 S.E.2d 577. It follows that these portions of the charge were erroneous and that the trial court erred in overruling special ......
-
Chandler v. Albama Power Co.
...to a level of 578 feet.' The court's charge on consequential damages is consistent with the law as set out in Georgia Power Co. v. Pittman, 92 Ga.App. 673, 89 S.E.2d 577, and Central Georgia Power Co. v. Mays, 137 Ga. 120, 124, 72 S.E. 900. The court also included in its charge instructions......
-
City of Gainesville v. Chambers, s. 43038
...by reason of the seller's unwillingness to part with his title.' 4 Nichols, Eminent Domain 173, § 12.3141. See Georgia Power Co. v. Pittman, 92 Ga.App. 673, 675, 89 S.E.2d 577; State Hwy. Dept. v. Stewart, 104 Ga.App. 178, 183, 121 S.E.2d 278; State Hwy. Dept. v. Whitehurst, 106 Ga.App. 532......
-
A Critical Review of Law of Business Loss Claims in Georgia Eminent Domain Jurisprudence - Charles M. Cork, Iii
...(explaining that actual pecuniary value is awardable when actual value and market value are not the same); Georgia Power Co. v. Pittman, 92 Ga. App. 673, 675, 89 S.E.2d 577, 579 (1955) (explaining that actual pecuniary value is to be awarded if market value is difficult to determine); Polk ......