State Highway Dept. v. Geehr
| Decision Date | 18 November 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 3,No. 41548,41548,3 |
| Parties | STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT v. O. L. GEEHR |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Richard L. Chambers, Asst. Atty. Gen., Horace E. Campbell, Deputy Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, William L. Preston, Monroe, for plaintiff in error.
D. M. Pollock, Monroe, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
1. In the trial of an appeal from an award in condemnation proceedings to acquire a part of condemnee's tract of land as a right of way for highway purposes, the condemnee, over condemnor's objection, elicited testimony calculated to impress the jury that a curve in the proposed highway would constitute a hazard to persons and property so as to diminish the market value of the land not taken. The possible danger of collision of vehicles using the proposed highway with persons and property upon the remaining portion of condemnee's land was not an element of damages for which compensation could be awarded. Guess v. Stone Mountain Granite, etc. Co., 72 Ga. 320, 328(2). However, under the facts of this case, the existence of the curve in the proposed highway might have served to illustrate to the jury a possible diminution of market value of the remainder area. For that purpose and that purpose alone, the evidence complained of was admissible. South Carolina R. Co. v. Steiner, 44 Ga. 546, 559; Atlantic & B. R. Co. v. McKnight, 125 Ga. 328, 331, 54 S.E. 148; Southern R. Co. v. Leonard, 58 Ga.App. 574, 580-581, 199 S.E. 433; Savannah, etc. R. Co. v. Williams, 133 Ga. 679, 680, 66 S.E. 942; Nichols, Eminent Domain § 14.256.
2. Special grounds 2 and 3 of the motion for new trial are controlled by the decision of this court in State Highway Dept. v. Ford, 112 Ga.App. 270, 144 S.E.2d 924 in which error was assigned for the same reasons upon charges of the court identical with the charges attacked in these grounds.
The charge attacked in special ground 2 is not subject to the exceptions stated in this ground.
The charge attacked in special ground 3 was erroneous for the reason indicated in the Ford case in Divisions 2, 3 and 4 of the opinion.
The judgment of the trial court is reversed on special ground 3 of the motion for new trial.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lumpkin v. State Highway Dept., 41850
...such opinion, I am now convinced that the decision in State Highway Dept. v. Ford, supra, which was followed in State Highway Dept. v. Geehr, 112 Ga.App. 664, 145 S.E.2d 736, is in conflict with the Supreme Court decisions and should be In the Bowers case, supra, it was held that the owner ......
-
Klumok v. State Highway Dept.
...the proposed highway by reason of any right of easement for ingress and egress to and from the highway. Both Ford and State Hwy. Dept. v. Geehr, 112 Ga.App. 664(2), 145 S.E.2d 736, which followed Ford, must yield to the authority of the Supreme Court in However, condemnee's right of access ......