Hayes v. Flaum
Citation | 227 S.E.2d 512,138 Ga.App. 787 |
Decision Date | 26 May 1976 |
Docket Number | No. 52024,No. 1,52024,1 |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Parties | D. L. HAYES et al. v. M. N. FLAUM et al |
Hugh R. Powell, Jr., Doraville, for appellants.
Thomas Henry Nickerson, Atlanta, for appellees.
'I think you have an impossible burden in the case' was the comment of the trial judge as he ruled adversely to the plaintiff (now appellant) in sustaining the motion for a directed verdict in behalf of defendants. His reference was to the problems confronting a tenant-partnership which had operated a men's clothing retail store in seeking to establish by legal evidence their claim agaisnt the landlord for damages to their fixtures, supplies, and inventory caused by mildew and dampness in the leased premises. This alleged defect in the premises had begun approximately two years prior to the date upon which tenants abandoned the leased store which they alleged became untenantable by reason of progressive deterioration. This factor of time was mentioned by the trial judge as one of plaintiffs' problems in establishing an actual date of the occurrence, but we do not deal with this as the court's decision was stated to be based on the inability of the plaintiffs to establish their loss with sufficient certainty. As the trial judge expressed it:
Our review of the trial transcript confirms the views expressed by the tribunal below. 'The question of damages cannot be left to speculation, conjecture and guesswork.' Development Corp. of Ga. v. Berndt, 131 Ga.App. 277, 278, 205 S.E.2d 868, 870. Where a party sues for damages he has the burden of proof of showing the amount of loss in a manner in which the jury or the trial judge in non-jury cases can calculate the amount of the loss with a reasonable degree of certainty. Studebaker Corp. v. Nail, 82 Ga.App. 779, 785, 62 S.E.2d 198; Williams & Templeton v. Brewer, 93 Ga.App. 603(1), 92 S.E.2d 586; Big Builder, Inc. v. Evans, 126 Ga.App. 457, 458(2), 191 S.E.2d 290; Taylor v. Roberson, 127 Ga.App. 24, 192 S.E.2d 384. See also Tri-State Systems, Inc. v. Village Outlet Stores, Inc., 135 Ga.App. 81, 85, 217 S.E.2d 399 and the quotation therein with approval of Central Coal & Coke Co. v. Hartman, 111 F. 96, 98 (8th Cir. 1901).
In part plaintiff-tenant relied upon the purchase...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bradley v. Godwin
...the verdict so far as actual damage is concerned. Thomas v. Campbell, 126 Ga.App. 675, 191 S.E.2d 619 (1972); Hayes v. Flaum, 138 Ga.App. 787, 227 S.E.2d 512 (1976). 3. But tenant claims she was entitled to at least nominal damages and, for that reason, that it was error for the court to di......
-
PENDARVIS CONST., CORP. v. Cobb County-Marietta Water Auth., A99A0346.
...88 (1995). Judgment reversed. JOHNSON, C.J., McMURRAY, P.J., ANDREWS, P.J., BLACKBURN, P.J., SMITH, RUFFIN, ELDRIDGE and BARNES, JJ., concur. 1.Hayes v. Flaum, 138 Ga.App. 787, 227 S.E.2d 512 (1976) (landlord-tenant dispute); Taylor v. Roberson, 127 Ga.App. 24, 192 S.E.2d 384 (1972) (automo......
-
Hawthorne Industries, Inc. v. Balfour Maclaine Intern., Ltd.
...is entirely correct that the "question of damages cannot be left to speculation, conjecture and guesswork." Hayes v. Flaum, 138 Ga.App. 787, 227 S.E.2d 512, 513 (1976) (cites omitted). The Georgia authorities cited above, however, clearly indicate that compensation for undisputed injury sho......
-
Ayers v. Mobley
...v. Nail, 82 Ga.App. 779, 785, 62 S.E.2d 198; and Smith v. Barfield, 157 Ga.App. 231, 232-233(2), 276 S.E.2d 899; Hayes v. Flaum, 138 Ga.App. 787, 227 S.E.2d 512. Plaintiff argues that the evidence showed the fi. fas. and levy were void in failing to show the necessary jurisdictional allegat......