Wiggins v. St. Louis, M. & S. E. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 22 May 1906
• Citation: 95 S.W. 311,119 Mo. App. 492
• Parties: WIGGINS v. ST. LOUIS, M. & S. E. RY. CO.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

95 S.W. 311

119 Mo. App. 492

WIGGINS v. ST. LOUIS, M. & S. E. RY. CO.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

May 22, 1906.

1. EVIDENCE—OPINION—VALUE.

In an action for the value of a fence destroyed by fire communicated by defendant's locomotive, it was error to permit witnesses to give their opinion of the amount of damage plaintiff had suffered.

2. DAMAGES—INJURIES TO PROPERTY.

In an action for the destruction of a fence by fire communicated by defendant's locomotive, the measure of damages was the actual value of the fence as it stood at the time of the fire, ascertained by the time and money properly expended to restore the fence to its former condition.

3. SAME.

Where, in an action for the destruction of a fence by fire communicated by defendant's locomotive, it appeared that the destruction of the fence interfered with the beneficial enjoyment of the premises, in addition to the value of the fence destroyed, the loss to the rental value of the premises for the time it would have taken to restore improvements should be added.

4. SAME.

In an action for grass killed by fire from defendant's locomotive, so that no crop was produced the next season, the damage was to the inheritance, and the measure of plaintiff's recovery the difference between the value of the premises before and after the fire.

5. EVIDENCE—OPINION EVIDENCE—VALUE.

In an action for the value of a fence destroyed by fire communicated by defendant's locomotive, it is proper to permit witnesses familiar with the character and value of the property to testify as to the value.

Error to Circuit Court, Wayne County; E. M. Dearing, Judge.

Action by M. F. Wiggins against the St. Louis, Memphis & Southeastern Railway Company. Judgment in favor of plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed.

Jas. Orchard, for plaintiff in error. V. V. Ing, for defendant in error.

NORTONI, J.

Plaintiff sued the defendant for the value of 8 or 10 panels of board fence and the destruction of 10 or 12 acres of timothy meadow, both of which were destroyed by fire communicated thereto by one of defendant's locomotive engines on its line of railroad which passes through his farm. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff, and defendant sues out a writ of error.

On the trial there was no evidence introduced tending to prove the value of the fence at the time of the fire, nor what it would cost to replace it, nor was there evidence tending to show the value of plaintiff's farm with the meadow at the time and prior to the fire and its value thereafter, so that the jury could ascertain the difference in value before and after the fire. All of the evidence introduced by the plaintiff on this question, and defendant introduced none, was the opinion of witnesses. One witness after another, over the objection and exception of defendant, was permitted to give his opinion of the amount of damage the plaintiff had suffered. This was error. To allow a witness to give his opinion as to the amount of damage sustained in any given case...