PENDARVIS CONST., CORP. v. Cobb County-Marietta Water Auth., A99A0346.
Decision Date | 08 July 1999 |
Docket Number | No. A99A0346.,A99A0346. |
Parties | PENDARVIS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION et al. v. COBB COUNTY-MARIETTA WATER AUTHORITY et al. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Frank Pendarvis, pro se.
Cochran, Camp & Snipes, Scott A. Cochran, Smyrna, for appellants.
Talley & Darden, David P. Darden, Marietta, for appellees.
A jury returned a verdict of $5,826 in favor of Pendarvis Construction Corporation in a condemnation action involving an easement for an underground water line over its property sought by Cobb County-Marietta Water Authority (the "Water Authority"). Pendarvis appeals and contends a jury charge impermissibly shifted the burden of proof and the court erroneously excluded certain material evidence.
1. The court instructed the jury with regard to the burden of proof as follows:
The court then instructed the jury on credibility, expert testimony, and several other matters including determining value of the property. Then the court gave this instruction:
The charge regarding the burden on the condemnee was erroneous. Lewis v. State Hwy. Dept., 110 Ga.App. 845, 140 S.E.2d 109 (1964). In Lewis, the court gave a charge which concluded with the following:
where the condemnee asserts the compensation to be paid, to which she is justly entitled, is greater than that shown by the condemnor's evidence, then the law places upon her likewise the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that such assertion on her part is true.
Id. at 846, 140 S.E.2d 109. The court in Lewis, held that this charge impermissibly shifted the burden of proof from the condemnor. "The burden of proving value and damages never shifts from the condemnor, though a burden of producing evidence may arise on the part of the condemnee when he asserts the greater value or damage." Id. at 845(1)(b), 140 S.E.2d 109. See also Dawson v. Dept. of Transp., 203 Ga.App. 157, 158-159, 416 S.E.2d 163 (1992).
The Water Authority argues that the charge given is consistent with Lewis because it only explains that Pendarvis had the burden of producing evidence to support its claim. Id. Although the charge as given used the phrase "burden of showing" instead of "burden of proving," we conclude the two are confusingly similar in this setting. In Ga. Power Co. v. Smith, 94 Ga.App. 166(1), 94 S.E.2d 48 (1956), the court explained the difference between the burdens on the parties in a condemnation action, and in so doing said, "In a case where the power of eminent domain is exercised, the burden is on the condemnor to show the value of the property taken and the consequential damages to the remainder of the property." Thus, the word "show" was used to describe the condemnor's burden. Its use here certainly suggests that the condemnee had the burden. The charge used in this case then required Pendarvis to make this showing "with a reasonable degree of certainty." This phrase also suggests a burden of proof. See Herr v. Withers, 237 Ga.App. 420, 515 S.E.2d 174 (1999) ( ).
The Water Authority contends Dept. of Transp. v. Bird, 158 Ga.App. 369, 280 S.E.2d 394 (1981) sanctions the charge given in this case. In that condemnation case, this court stated:
Where a party seeks additional damages he has the burden of proof of showing the amount of loss in a manner from which the jury or the trial judge in a non-jury case can calculate the amount of the loss with a reasonable degree of certainty.
Id. at 370, 280 S.E.2d 394. However, none of the three cases cited for the proposition are condemnation cases.1 The court in Bird continued its reasoning and stated that once the condemnor showed a prima facie case, "the burden then fell upon the [condemnee] to show that the [condemnor's] proof of value was inadequate." Bird, 158 Ga.App. at 371, 280 S.E.2d 394.
Ga. Power v. Brooks, 207 Ga. 406, 411(4), 62 S.E.2d 183 (1950). We therefore disapprove of using the language in Bird as the basis for a jury charge regarding the burden of the condemnee. We further criticize West v. Dept. of Transp., 176 Ga.App. 806, 809(2), 338 S.E.2d 45 (1985) to the extent it appears to sanction the holding in Bird.
Even taken as a whole, the charge given impermissibly placed the burden of proof on Pendarvis to show a value greater than offered by the Water Authority. As such, it was error to give the charge.
2. During the charge conference, Pendarvis stated it had no objection to any of the Water Authority's proposed jury charges. After the court charged the jury, Pendarvis stated it had no objection to the whole charge as given. Failure to object to an instruction before the jury returns its verdict generally results in a waiver of any defects in the charge. OCGA § 5-5-24(a); Bryant v. Housing Auth. of City of Atlanta, 121 Ga. App. 32(2), 172 S.E.2d 439 (1970); Pope v. Goodgame, 223 Ga.App. 672, 675(3)(c), 478 S.E.2d 636 (1996). However, "the appellate courts shall consider and review erroneous charges where there...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Brown v. Tucker
...substantial error that was harmful as a matter of law. OCGA § 5–5–24 (c) ; Pendarvis Constr. Corp. v. Cobb County–Marietta Water Auth. , 239 Ga.App. 14, 16–17, 520 S.E.2d 530 (1999) (charge shifting burden 337 Ga.App. 715 of proving value from condemnor to condemnee reversible error despite......
-
Parks v. Multimedia Technologies, Inc.
... ... OCGA § 9-11-56(c)." Lau's Corp. v. Haskins, 261 Ga. 491, 405 S.E.2d 474 (1991) ... ...
-
American Ass'n of Cab Companies v. Parham
...application of judicial decisions is the usual rule in all civil cases"). 23. See Pendarvis Constr. Corp. v. Cobb County-Marietta Water Auth., 239 Ga.App. 14, 16-17(2), 520 S.E.2d 530 (1999) (because erroneous charge on burden of proof in condemnation action went to the primary issue of the......
-
Maki v. Real Estate Expert Advisors Inc.
...civil RICO claims was erroneous and harmful as a matter of law." (footnotes omitted)); Pendarvis Const. Corp. v. Cobb Cnty.-Marietta Water Auth. , 239 Ga. App. 14, 17 (2), 520 S.E.2d 530 (1999) ("The error in this case was an error of law and it was prejudicial because it went to the primar......