San Pedro, L.A. & S.L.R. Co. v. Board of Education of Salt Lake City

• Decision Date: 27 May 1907
• Docket Number: 1800
• Citation: 90 P. 565,32 Utah 305
• Parties: SAN PEDRO, L. A. & S. L. R. CO. v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SALT LAKE CITY
• Court: Utah Supreme Court

90 P. 565

32 Utah 305

SAN PEDRO, L. A. & S. L. R. CO. v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SALT LAKE CITY

No. 1800

Supreme Court of Utah

May 27, 1907

APPEAL from District Court, Third District; T. D. Lewis, Judge.

Proceedings by the San Pedro, Los Angeles & Salt Lake Railroad Company against the board of education of Salt Lake City for the condemnation of land, and from the judgment for condemnation and damages plaintiff appeals.

REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR NEW TRIAL.

C. O Whittemore and Pennel Cherrington for appellant.

E. B Critchlow and Ray Van Cott for respondent.

FRICK J. McCARTY, C. J., and STRAUP, J., concur.

OPINION

FRICK, J.

The matters presented for review in this case grew out of a certain proceeding instituted by the plaintiff, the appellant in this court, against the defendant, the board of education of Salt Lake City, the respondent here, to condemn a certain strip of land. The record is quite voluminous, but the facts necessary to a comprehension of the question passed upon may be stated as follows: The respondent on the 1st day of August, 1905, owned, occupied, and used for public school purposes in the western portion of Salt Lake City a certain parcel of land 292 feet in length by 150 feet in width, on which there was situate a one-story brick school building, sixty-three by ninety feet, divided into four rooms, accommodating about forty pupils in each room. A strip of ground 43 1/2 feet in width off the south end of the larger strip mentioned above was condemned by appellant, making the condemned strip 150 feet in length by 43 1/2 feet wide. The strip in question was sought for the purpose of constructing thereon a railroad, and, if deemed necessary in the future, to construct double or more tracks as the necessities of the appellant might require. The strip of ground is in the westerly, and somewhat sparsely settled, part of Salt Lake City, and the railroad in question constitutes the main line of appellant between Los Angeles and Salt Lake City, and is designed for all railroad traffic, both present and future, that the public needs may require, including local traffic to and from the smelters to the west of Salt Lake City. The railroad track as laid is 127 feet south from the south end of the school building, running east and west, and the parcel of ground on which it stands, including the condemned portion, is 248 1/2 feet by 150 feet; the access to the building being practically the same as before the railroad was constructed. Some of the children attending school, relatively speaking, live a considerable distance from the schoolhouse; but, upon the whole, it was fairly well situated to accommodate the largest number of children living in that district, and was fairly well adapted to fill the wants of the people in that vicinity for school purposes for children from the first to the sixth grades.

The respondent at the trial contended, and now contends, that the construction and operation of a railroad, in view of the noise, the jar of the building by passing trains, the distraction of the attention of the children, and the physical dangers incident to the operation of a railroad, practically destroyed the school property for school purposes, so that it was and had to be abandoned and renders it valueless for school purposes. Upon this subject the evidence, in substance, discloses the following facts, as appears from the testimony of some of the principals and teachers testifying as experts, viz.: That several large passenger trains pass to and fro daily (the exact number is not shown). Also some freight trains pass by the school daily each way. It seems no trains passed during the school hours up to the time of trial, but such might be the case in the near future. That the passing of a train has the effect to distract the attention of the pupils from their studies, and the noise would interrupt recitations for the time being until the train had passed. That the school in such condition could not be kept up to the required standard by the school board without extra effort on the part of both pupil and teacher, and that it was not practical to keep the school work or the results thereof up to the same standard of efficiency with the railroad as it could be done without it. Miss Frost, who was a teacher in the school in question after its location was changed, and who testified for respondent as an expert upon this subject, explains, perhaps as well as any witness what is meant by keeping up the standard grade of efficiency, as follows: "Q. What do you mean by not keeping it up to the standard? A. There is a standard required in each grade throughout the city, and allowances are not made for environment. We are judged by results, and all the things that interfere with our work reflect on the school and its management, without special consideration being given to what may have caused that Q. So you mean to be understood, then, that you can't get as good results here as if the railroad was not there? A. That is my opinion." All the teachers and principals testify that in their judgment the operation of the railroad would interfere with the successful conduct of the school. Some say it would greatly interfere, while others say it would do so to a considerable extent, but all agree that they do not mean to say that the school could not be conducted with the railroad, but that it could not be so with the same degree of efficiency and not as free from danger to the children as if the railroad were not there. These teachers also testified that there are in fact other schools, some not as large and some much larger, being conducted in the city situate about the same distance from other railroad tracks as the school in question, and that as many as twenty trains a day pass some of such schools. All of these teachers insist, however, that the railroad, to some extent at least, affects the efficiency of these schools, and that the required standard can be kept up, if kept up at all, only by extra effort, by home study, and by other means. They also say that it would require extra care upon the part of the teacher to keep the children from the railroad tracks during school recess, and in going from and coming to school, but say that the danger in going and coming is no greater in this instance than it would be in crossing a track in coming to and going from any other school, of which there are a number in the city. It also appears that the track in question is about 2 1/2 feet above the level of the school ground, while in the other schools referred to it is some feet below the level of the ground.

Upon substantially the foregoing facts in respect to the destruction of the property for school purposes, the court submitted the following question to the jury as a part of the verdict to be returned by them, viz.: "Do you find from the evidence that the property of the defendant not taken has been wholly destroyed for school purposes?" The answer was, "Yes." The court also gave instruction to the jury in respect to the method to be pursued by them in ascertaining the value of the property taken, and the damages to the property not taken, directing the jury to find from the whole evidence whether the property not taken was wholly destroyed or only damaged for school purposes, and, if wholly destroyed for said purposes, then the amount to be allowed by them would be the whole value of the property not taken, less the amount that they should find its value to be for other than school purposes, and, if they found it to be damaged and not wholly destroyed for school purposes, then to find the amount of such damages and allow them, and, in addition to either amount, also the value of the strip actually taken. The jury in accordance with these instructions found the value of the strip taken to be $ 250 and the damages to the part not taken $ 7,750. Just how the jury arrived at this result is not quite clear, but the reasonable theory to be deduced from the evidence is that they found the value of the part and parcel not taken to be worth from $ 2,000 to $ 2,500 for other purposes, and deducted that amount from what they found the building and land to be worth for school purposes before the railroad was constructed, and the balance constitutes their findings as damages. Upon this verdict and findings the court entered a decree condemning the property and judgment for the amount found by the jury, namely $ 8,000, and computed legal interest on said sum from the date of taking said strip, August 1, 1905.

Appellant filed a motion for a new trial, which...