Standridge v. City of Hot Springs, 80-294
| Decision Date | 26 January 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-294,80-294 |
| Citation | 610 S.W.2d 574,271 Ark. 754 |
| Parties | E. W. and Gertha STANDRIDGE, Appellants, v. CITY OF HOT SPRINGS, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Donald Frazier, Little Rock, for appellants.
Curtis L. Ridgway, Jr., City Atty., Hot Springs, for appellee.
The appellants, husband and wife, owned urban property in Hot Springs, on which were situated cabins containing eleven residential rental units. The cabins were allowed to fall into such disrepair that the city, assertedly after having given lawful notice of its intentions, demolished the cabins as being substandard and unfit for human habitation. The appellants brought this action against the city to recover $40,000 as compensation "for the unlawful destruction of their property."
At the close of all the proof the trial judge directed a verdict for the city on several grounds, one being that the plaintiffs had failed to prove the proper measure of their damages. The Court of Appeals certified the case to us under Rule 29(1)(o). The only argument for reversal is that the court should not have directed a verdict. Inasmuch as we find that the plaintiffs failed to offer proper proof of their damages, we affirm the judgment.
About six months before the city demolished the cabins the appellants moved away from Hot Springs and stopped renting any of the units. Their sole proof of damages was Mrs. Standridge's testimony that the cabins had formerly been rented for a net rental of about $207 a month. The proper measure of damages, however, is either the replacement value of the cabins or the difference in the value of the land before and after the demolition. Cy Carney Appliance Co. v. True, 226 Ark. 961, 295 S.W.2d 768 (1956); Missouri Pac. R. R. v. Wood, 165 Ark. 240, 263 S.W. 964 (1924); Bush, Receiver, v. Taylor, 130 Ark. 522, 197 S.W. 1172, 7 A.L.R. 262 (1917). That the plaintiffs' proof of rental value was introduced without objection cannot be regarded as a waiver by the city of the proper measure of damages, because proof of rental value would arguably have been admissible as bearing upon the value of the cabins before their destruction.
The appellants do not argue that the trial judge was wrong about the correct measure of damages. Instead they argue, without citation of authority, that since Civil Procedure Rule 50(a) requires that a motion for a directed verdict state the specific grounds therefor, the trial court "cannot add to defendant's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McClina v. State
...Walker v. State, 318 Ark. 107, 883 S.W.2d 831 (1994); Brown v. State, 316 Ark. 724, 875 S.W.2d 828 (1994); Standridge v. City of Hot Springs, 271 Ark. 754, 756, 610 S.W.2d 574 (1981) (citing Ryan Distrib. Corp. v. Caley, 147 F.2d 138 (3d Cir.1945)). McClina's argument that Rule 33.1 serves ......
-
Tester v. State, CR 00-409.
...motion, or, if justice requires, allow the State to reopen its case and supply the missing proof. Id. (citing Standridge v. City of Hot Springs, 271 Ark. 754, 610 S.W.2d 574 (1981)). It is well-settled that parties cannot change the grounds for an objection on appeal, but are bound by the s......
-
McClina v. State, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Ark. 10/9/2003)
...Walker v. State, 318 Ark. 107, 883 S.W.2d 831 (1994); Brown v. State, 316 Ark. 724, 875 S.W.2d 828 (1994); Standridge v. City of Hot Springs, 271 Ark. 754, 756, 610 S.W.2d 574 (1981) (citing Ryan Distrib. Corp. v. Caley, 147 F.2d 138 (3d Cir. 1945)). McClina's argument that Rule 33.1 serves......
-
Brown v. State
...grant the motion, or, if justice requires, allow the State to reopen its case and supply the missing proof. Standridge v. City of Hot Springs, 271 Ark. 754, 610 S.W.2d 574 (1981). Appellant's abstract reflects that at the conclusion of the State's case he "[m]oved for a directed verdict," w......