Georgia Power Co. v. Harwell

• Citation: 113 Ga.App. 653,149 S.E.2d 376
• Decision Date: 11 May 1966
• Docket Number: No. 41719,No. 3,41719,3
• Parties: GEORGIA POWER COMPANY v. James H. HARWELL, Sr
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 376

149 S.E.2d 376

113 Ga.App. 653

GEORGIA POWER COMPANY v. James H. HARWELL, Sr.

No. 41719.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 3.

May 11, 1966.

Russell & McWhorter, T. Penn McWhorter, Winder, for appellant.

James W. Paris, G. Wesley Channell, Winder, for appellee.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court

BELL, Presiding Judge.

Georgia Power Company brought these proceedings to acquire an easement across land owned by James H. Harwell, Sr. A jury trial was had, and condemnor brought this appeal from the trial court's judgment on the verdict. Held:

1. The jury returned a verdict for condemnee for $1,020 actual damages and $3,180 consequential damages. Before judgment was rendered on the verdict, the condemnee voluntarily wrote off $201 of the finding of actual damages for the taking and $90 of the finding of consequential damages, thus reducing the amounts for actual damages and consequential damages respectively to $819 and $3,090, a total of $3,909. Excepting witness Harwell's estimate of actual damages, these figures as reduced were the highest estimates in the testimony as to damages. The trial court entered judgment for condemnee based on the verdict as reduced. The fifth ground of error enumerated alleges that the trial court erred in allowing condemnee to remit portions of the verdict. Ground 6 asserts that the verdict and judgment were excessive even after the voluntary remission of portions of the verdict. 'Market value may be established by either direct or circumstantial evidence. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Harris, 1 Ga.App. 667, 669, 57 S.E. 1030; Landrum v. Swann, 8 Ga.App. 209(2), 68 S.E. 862; Farm Products Co. v. Eubanks, 29 Ga.App. 604, 607, 116 S.E. 327. On this issue, the jury 'are not absolutely bound even by the uncontradicted testimony of experts, but may consider the nature of the property involved and any other facts or circumstances within their knowledge in arriving at a verdict, provided there is in evidence sufficient facts from which they may draw a legitimate conclusion.' Grant v. Dannals, 87 Ga.App. 389, 391 74 S.E.2d 119, 121. 'Questions of value are peculiarly for the determination of the jury where there is any data in the evidence upon which the jury may legitimately exercise their 'own knowledge and ideas. " Dixon v. Cassels Co., 34 Ga.App. 478(3), 130 S.E. 75. See also, Atlantic C.L.R. Co. v. Clements, 92 Ga.App. 451, 455, 88 S.E.2d 809; Childs v. Logan Motor Co., 103 Ga.App. 633, 639, 120 S.E.2d 138.' Sun Ins. Co. of New York v. League, 112 Ga.App. 625, 626, 145 S.E.2d 768, 769. The original verdict here was not far disparate from the opinion evidence of value, and moreover, there were ample data and circumstances shown by the evidence which authorized the jury to return a verdict higher than the opinion evidence indicated. 'It is well settled that one may voluntarily release a portion of a verdict in his favor, when it does not prejudice the rights of the other party.' Central of Ga. R. Co. v. Perkerson, 112 Ga. 923, 935, 38 S.E. 365, 370, 53 L.R.A. 210; Griffin v. Witherspoon, 8 Ga. 113; Augusta R. Co. v. Glover, 92 Ga. 132, 148(15), 18 S.E. 406; Mayor, etc., of City of Brunswick v. Tucker, 103 Ga. 233, 235, 29 S.E. 701. Where it does not appear that the trial court disapproved the original verdict or that it was so excessive as to indicate bias or prejudice on the party of the jury, the judgment of the trial court allowing a voluntary reduction of the verdict is not cause for a new trial. Savannah, F. & W.R. Co. v. Godkin, 104 Ga. 655, 658(4), 30 S.E. 378. See also Seaboard A.L.R. v. Randolph, 129 Ga. 796, 798, 59 S.E. 1110. The fifth and six grounds enumerated are without merit.

2. The first enumeration complains of the following part of the court's charge to the jury: 'I charge you that in estimating the value of the easement...