Pratt Engineering & Machine Co. v. Trotti

• Decision Date: 19 September 1914
• Docket Number: 567.
• Citation: 83 S.E. 107,142 Ga. 401
• Parties: PRATT ENGINEERING & MACHINE CO. v. TROTTI.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

83 S.E. 107

142 Ga. 401

PRATT ENGINEERING & MACHINE CO. v. TROTTI.

No. 567.

Supreme Court of Georgia

September 19, 1914

Syllabus by the Court.

To a petition brought to recover damages for injury to property upon which was situated the home and residence of the plaintiff and her family, caused by the creation and maintenance of a nuisance, it was competent by way of amendment to add a paragraph charging that the defendant did the acts complained of "willfully, wantonly, and in bad faith, and has intentionally caused petitioner unnecessary inconvenience," and claiming a recovery of an additional amount as punitive or exemplary damages.

Evidence having been introduced showing the value of the property of the plaintiff before and after the erection of the alleged nuisance, and the difference between its value before the erection of the nuisance and the price at which the plaintiff subsequently sold it, the court did not err, as against the defendant, in charging the jury that they should consider this evidence "only for the purposes of illustrating, if it does, the question of how much, if any, the plaintiff was injured in the use and occupation and enjoyment of the premises."

Under the ruling made in the first headnote, the court did not err in charging the provisions of section 4503 of the Civil Code allowing exemplary damages under certain circumstances.

Grounds of a motion for a new trial, complaining that the verdict was contrary to the charge of the court, are included in the general grounds that the verdict is contrary to law and without evidence to support it.

A verdict in favor of the plaintiff was authorized by the evidence; and the same cannot be set aside by this court upon the ground that it was excessive; it not manifestly appearing that the amount of the recovery was the result of bias prejudice, or other corrupt motive.

Error from Superior Court, Fulton County; W. D. Ellis, Judge.

Action by Mrs. Emma Trotti against the Pratt Engineering & Machine Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

Anderson & Rountree, of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

Frank L. Fenn, Hugh M. Dorsey, and Dorsey, Shelton & Dorsey, all of Atlanta, for defendant in error.

BECK J. (after stating the facts as above).

1. There was no error in overruling the objections to the amendment. The petition alleged the creation and maintenance of a nuisance after due notice to the defendant and a request by the plaintiff to abate the same; the nuisance thus maintained being one which destroyed to a large extent the value of plaintiff's property, upon which was located the home of herself and her family, and endangered the lives and health of petitioner and members of her family. It was competent by way of amendment to allege and prove, if proof existed, that the defendant, in maintaining the nuisance in the manner pleaded, acted willfully, wantonly, and in bad faith, and intentionally caused petitioner unnecessary inconvenience, and that in consequence thereof the defendant was liable to petitioner in a stated sum as exemplary and punitive damages. Such an amendment did not add a new and distinct cause of action; nor was it objectionable on the ground that it was not germane to the cause of action set forth in the original petition; nor was it "improper and illegal under the theory of and the issues raised by the allegations of the original petition." Savannah etc., Railroad v. Holland, 82 Ga. 257, 10 S.E. 200, 14 Am.St.Rep. 158; Southern Ry. Co. v. Jordan, 129 Ga 665, 59 S.E. 802. If the allegations of the original petition are true, the defendant, after notice and request to abate, was maintaining a nuisance which not only lessened the value of the plaintiff's property, but endangered the lives of herself and her children. If it did this with knowledge of the fact and under...