Derbofen v. T. L. James & Co.

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Oct 20, 1977

7126

Reporters:
Before:: Lemmon, Samuel, Boutall, Schott, Beer

John M. Mamoulides, Gretna, Gail T. Kreher and Abbott J. Reeves, New Orleans, for plaintiffs-appellees.

Hurley, McNulty & Stakelum, Paul E. Hurley and P. J. Stakelum, III, New Orleans, for defendants-appellants.

Before SAMUEL, LEMMON, BOUTALL, SCHOTT and BEER, JJ.

LEMMON, Judge.

DECREE

The result of the attached opinions, stating the votes of the members of the fivejudge panel on the merits of this case and the reasons therefor, is a judgment for plaintiffs in the amount of $1,494.00, plus legal interest from October 30, 1958, and all costs in both courts.

LEMMON and BEER, JJ., concur in the decree and assign reasons.

SCHOTT, J., concurs in the decree only and assigns reasons.

BOUTALL, J., dissents from the decree and assigns reasons.

SAMUEL, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and assigns reasons.

LEMMON and BEER, JJ., vote to amend and affirm on the merits and assign reasons.

BOUTALL, J., votes to affirm and amend on the merits and assigns reasons.

SCHOTT, J., dissents on the merits and assigns reasons.

LEMMON and BEER, Judges, concur in the Decree and assign reasons.

The members of the five-judge panel have taken different points of view as to why the five votes (stated in the attached opinions on the merits) result in a judgment for plaintiffs in the amount of $1,494.00. We therefore state our reasons for agreeing or disagreeing with the decree separately from our divergent opinions on the merits of the case.

A defendant had appealed from a judgment for plaintiffs in the amount of $183,112.30. On appeal we (Judges Lemmon and Beer) voted for judgment for plaintiffs in the amount of $1,494.00, Judges Samuel and Boutall voted for judgment for plaintiffs in the amount of $199,637.50, and Judge Schott voted for judgment for defendant.

In our view there are two reasonable approaches to the decision that these votes result in the stated decree. One point of view is that sincе defendant sought relief by appeal, the effect of Judge Schott‘s vote, combined with our votes, is to grant that relief, at least to the extent of a reduction of $181,618.30. Under this view the effect of Judge Schott‘s vote for the ultimate reduction (to zero) resulted in three votes concurring to reduce by $181,618.30 to $1,494.00, since a vote for a greater reduction encompasses a vote for a lesser reduction.

The other point of view is that there are four votes to award a judgment to plaintiffs, and the effect of the votes of Judges Samuel and Boutall to award judgment in the amount of $199,637.50, combined with our votes, is to award a judgment of at least $1,494.00, since a vote for a greater award includes by inference a vote for at least the lesser award.

Either point of view appears plausible to us. We agree that the result of our votes is a judgment for plaintiff for $1,494.00, and it matters not whether one voter believes another‘s vote caused this result. There is no doubt as to the decree, and the disagreement as to why this decree resulted from the votes does not affect the decree itself.

SCHOTT, Judge, concurring in Decree only.

Because this court is required to sit in panels of at least three judges and five under the circumstances present in this case, and because a majority must concur to render a judgment, Art. 5, § 8, Constitution of 1974, we are presented with somewhat of a riddle in deciding what decree has emerged from the diverse opinions of the judges who have participated in the case.

The judgment of the trial court is in favor of plaintiffs and against defendants for $183,112.30. I would reverse this judgment and dismiss plaintiffs’ suit. All of my colleagues agree that the judgment should be affirmed but two would amend the amount to $1,494.00, while the other two would amend the amount to $199,637.50. Since the lesser amount is included in the greater, all four concur in an award of $1,494.00.

Nevertheless, Judges Samuel and Boutall will not sign the decree awarding plaintiffs $1,494.00, and while they have espoused good reasons for this decision I submit with all due respect to my colleagues that they are in error. In my opinion, by their decision, Judges Samuel and Boutall have unintentionally concurred in the award made by Judges Lemmon and Beer for $1,494.00, and that has become the judgment of the majority of this court.

The result reached in this case is indeed bizarre with the one judge of this court who would reverse the judgment of the trial court and dismiss plaintiffs’ suit, being required to join in a decree which effectively affirms the judgment of the trial court. But I perceive the effect of the judgment of two of my colleagues differently than they do. The case must be decided by the court of which I am a member, and it is the decree of the court in which I concur, although I am convinced that my basic position is correct, i. e., the judgment should be reversed and plaintiffs’ suit dismissed.¹

BOUTALL, Judge, dissenting from Decree.

The result of our consideration of this case before a 5 man panel is that 2 judges would decrease the award in plaintiff‘s judgment, 2 judges would increase the award, and 1 judge would reverse the judgment, granting plaintiff nothing. The Constitution of 1974 Art. 5 § 8(B) requires “a majority must concur to render judgment.” Is there such concurrence here?

In all cases before the courts of appeal the basic inquiry is whether the trial court judgment is correct. This judgment can only be modified or reversed by a majority vote. When a judgment is modified by the Court, the starting point of the modification is the judgment itself. Thus, when the judgment awards money and the modification is quantum, an effective decree is produced when a majority concurs at the least amount of the reduction or the least amount of the increase. See for example Lowe v. Gentilly Dodge, Inc., 342 So.2d 1231 (La.App. 4th, 1977). To some degree this principle supports the same basic principles behind cases like Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., 341 So.2d 332 (La.1976) in the setting of damages.

In this case it could be said that 4 judges have concurred that plaintiff is entitled to recover, but what shall he recover? Here, 2 judges have said the award shall be decreased and 2 have said the award shall be increased. The disparity in the amounts of award is not simply a dispute over discretionary general damages as per C.C. Art. 1934(3), but is caused by dispute over the legal basis for setting the award. Thus I say that I do not concur in the proposed decree and that this case should be placed before the court en banc for consideration. The amount I would award is so close to the trial judgment that I could conscientiously affirm it, but I cannot concur in the proposed decree.

Prior constitutional provisions have provided methods of appointing other judges or attorneys in order to arrive at a majority concurring. Our presеnt constitution does ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍not so provide but neither does it limit us to panels of three judges or five judges. Under our inherent powers we can sit en banc and hopefully reach a majority. See Dauzat v. Allstate Insurance Co., 257 La. 349, 242 So.2d 539 (La.1970).

However, three judges have now concurred in a decree for expressed reasons, so that the constitutional mandate has been fulfilled. While I do not approve of the third judge‘s reasons, I do commend him for moving this ancient case forward to final resolution.

SAMUEL, Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I agree with the reasons expressed and the conclusions reached in the “Affirming and Amending on the Merits” opinion of Judge Boutall. Accordingly, I concur in the majority decree that plaintiffs are entitled to recover additional damages, but I dissent from that portion of the now majority decree which awards only $1,494 as I would set those damages at $199,637.50 as does Judge Boutall.

In addition, because my fellow judges on the panel have stated their views as to what the decree would be if Judge Schott had not concurred in the now majority decree and despite the fact that such opinions are dicta, I feel it necessary to give my own views on that question.

With reference to the Louisiana Courts of Appeal, Article 5, Section 8(B) of our 1974 Constitution specifically provides that a majority of the judges sitting in any case “must concur to render judgment” (emphasis added). As I see it, “concur” means and requires an affirmative action on the part of the concurring judge.¹ In other words, in order for a judge to concur in a decree he must affirmatively say he concurs. Thus, when the conclusions of this five judge panel were two for a $199,637.50 award, two for a $1,494 award and one for no award, the result was no judgment at all. Certainly, it cannot be said that I concurred in a decree awarding $1,494 because in my opinion the award should be $199,637.50 simply because the greater includes the lesser, or on any of the other various views exprеssed by my colleagues, when I did not concur in the lesser amount and actually dissented therefrom. The decree in this case is now a majority decree and the judgment of the court simply because Judge Schott has stated he concurs in the $1,494 award, a concurrence deserving commendation because it brings this too long delayed matter to an end as far as this court is concerned.

ON THE MERITS

LEMMON and BEER, Judges, amending and affirming on the merits.

This litigation involves a trespass by agents of T. L. James & Company onto plaintiffs’ property in the course of dredging operations. This suit is the second filed by plaintiffs, and this appeal is the third time the matter has come before this court. Although the record is voluminous, the facts pertinent to this appeal are virtually undisputed, and the issues now before us are essentially legal ones, being (1) whether the plaintiffs under the circumstances of this case can recover an additional award in this second suit after a judgment in the first suit has already granted an award for the trespass, and (2) if so, the proper method of determining the amount of the award.

Facts

In the early 1950‘s plaintiffs owned a five-acre tract of land, known as Grove 57, in eastern New Orleans. The land was generally low and subject to tidal overflow, and the area was largely uninhabited.

Having contracted to construct the base for Interstate Highway 10 in the vicinity of Grove 57, T. L. James negotiated an agreement with the owner of an adjoining tract of land, who desired to have a lake dug on his property. The contractor dredged the lake in 1957 and utilized most of the excavated material in the construction of the road base, compensating the owner for the material on an agreed basis. During the course of the dredging, the contractor inadvertently dredged completely across the center of Grove 57, excavating about 80,025 cubic yards of fill material over a surface area of 2.236 acres.

When plaintiffs learned of the trespass, they filed a suit in 1958, seeking to recover damages itemized (1) for removal of the soil at an asserted price per yard, (2) for destruction of trees and vegetation, and (3) for loss of use and enjoyment, reserving the right “to claim future damages for the continuing trespass“. The suit also demanded that the court order T. L. James to restore the property to its former condition, reserving the “right to claim damages for indemnification of necessary expenses to be incurred on account thereof in the event of defendants’ failure to so do“.

The trial court found the admitted trespass was in good faith and rendered a judgment for $6,044.00 against T. L. James. Noting that the sole issue was the quantum of damages to be awarded for the trespass, the court awarded damages based on “the difference in the market value of the property as a whole before and after the injury“.¹

Plaintiffs appealed, and this court granted a higher award, taking a different view of the measurement of damages. After mentioning plaintiffs’ request for restoration of the property (noting “they have asked for no alternative moneyed judgment for this“) and their two reservations of “rights“, the court concluded “the only item of damages we can consider is the value of the dirt in place on plaintiffs’ property at the time it was removed“.² (Emphasis supplied) The court then awarded plaintiffs 20 cents per yard, or $16,005.00, based substantially on T. L. James’ net profit on the dirt removed in the entire project. The court further amended the judgment to reserve “plaintiffs’ right to sue for future damages as prayed for in their petition . . . .” See 148 So.2d 795 (La.App.1962).

After applying unsuccessfully for a rehearing, plaintiffs did not seek review of our judgment, but immediately filed the present suit, alleging they had been “damaged by the continuing trespass” and claiming “damages for indemnification for necessary expenses to be incurred” for removal of the water and restoration of the original contour, for engineering and other fees, and for loss of use to date.

After extensive periods with little action, an exception of prescription was filed and was maintained by the trial court. On appeal from the judgment maintaining the exception, this court reversed, holding that since the same cause of action was asserted in each suit, prescription had been interrupted by the filing of the first suit.³ See 274 So.2d 734 (La.App.1973).

On remand, the case was tried on the merits, and in December, 1974 judgment was rendered against T. L. James. The trial court, reasoning that plaintiffs “have the right to damages for the trespass” and that the trespass had continued up to the date of trial, determined that those damages should be measured by the 1974 value of the portion of Grove 57 injured by the 1957 dredging. Since 97,400 square feet of Grove 57 was covered by water and since fully developed estate sites in the prestige subdivision then surrounding Grove 57 sold for as high as $1.88 per square foot, the court set the damages at $183,112.30.⁴

That judgment is now before us for review.

Continuing Tort

The trial court erred in finding that a continuing trespass existed 17 years after the dredging operations were completed.

A continuing tort is one in which the damage-causing act continues over a period of time.⁵ DiCarlo v. Laundry & Dry Cleaning Service, 178 La. 676, 152 So. 327 (1933). A continuing trespass must be distinguished from a trespass which causes continuing injury by permanently changing the physical condition of the land. See Restatement, Second, Torts § 162, Comment e (1965).

When a trespass which permanently changes the physical condition of the land is concluded, no additional сauses of action accrue merely because the damage continues to exist or even progressively worsens. Griffin v. Drainage Commission, 110 La. 840, 34 So. 799 (1903). The problem in this case, therefore, is one of measuring damages at the time the dredging operation was concluded, and not one of assessing damages for successive causes of action accruing because of a continuing tort.⁶

We conclude that there was no continuing tort in this case after the dredging operation was completed. Plaintiffs’ right to recover an additional award in this suit therefore depends upon the effect of the reservation of rights recognized by the prior panel of this court.

Exceptions of Res Judicata, Estoppel by Judgment ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍and Improper Division of an Obligation

T. L. James initially reurges its exceptions which were overruled by the trial court.

For the exception of res judicata to apply, the demand must be between the same parties and founded on the same cause of action, and the thing demanded must be the same. C.C. art. 2286.

Concededly, the demand in this case is between the same parties who were involved in the earlier action. Since we have concluded there was no continuing tort beyond 1957, the test of identity of causes of action is also met.⁷ Finally, the thing demanded in both suits was reparation of tort-caused injury, and it would appear at first blush that relitigation of that demand is barred by res judicata.

As to the tort obligation, C.C. art. 2315 obliges him whose fault caused damage to repair it. Plaintiffs’ petition in the first suit itemized only some of the cost of reparation due under the tort obligation imposed on T. L. James by C.C. art. 2315, but failed to itemize a cost for restoring the property, attempting instead to reserve the right to demand this item of damages later.⁸

However, at the first trial the pleadings were expanded when both parties introduced evidence without objection as to the cost of restoring the property to its original condition. Either the trial court (under C.C.P. art. 862) or the appellate court (under C.C.P. art. 2164) could have decided the issue of whether plaintiffs should be awarded the cost of restoration as an item of damages. However, this court did not either grant or deny recovery of the cost of restoration, but specifically declined to adjudicate that issue, although it was properly before the court.⁹ Furthermore, in the decree this court reserved “plaintiffs’ right to sue for future damages as prayed for in their petition“.¹⁰

Considered together, this court‘s refusal to adjudicate the issue and our reservation of plaintiffs’ rights “prayed for in the petition” could reasonably have led plaintiffs to believe that they had the option of seeking certiorari or of filing an itemized demand for the cost of restoration by either a supplemental petition or a second suit.

Res judicata cannot apply to issues which a previous panel of this court has refused to adjudicate, and it would be patently unfair for this panel to apply the doctrine of res judicata. Because of these unusual circumstances, we reluctantly conclude that the exceptions were properly overruled.

Method of Determining Award

Plaintiffs argue that under C.C. art. 508 they had the right to demand “demolition of such works“, and they contend the article gives them the right to demand removal of the lake and restoration of the property to its original condition.¹¹

We reject the applicability of C.C. art. 508, which is found in Title II—Of Ownership, Chapter 3—Of the Right of Accession to What Unites or Incorporates Itself to the Thing, and Section 1—Of the Right of Accession in Relation to Immovables. This case does not involve the right of accession, and neither is the ownership of the lake involved. In our view this case involves reparation of tort-caused damages to property.

The basic concept of tort reparation required by C.C. art. 2315 is that the tort victim should be restored, as nearly as possible according to the particular circumstances of each and every case, to the position he enjoyed prior to the tort-caused damage. No hard and fast rule can be formulated for reparation of every tort victim, and each case must be decided equitably under its own particular facts and circumstances.

In the present case plaintiffs (and the heirs of some plaintiffs) had purchased the five-acre tract of land as an investment, and at the time of the tort plaintiffs were still holding the land for investment purposes. None of the plaintiffs had ever seen the land prior to the tort because of the physical character of the general area in which the land was located. Significantly, there was a considerable amount of similar undeveloped land in the area which was on the market at the time and available for investment purposes.

Under these circumstances we believe that the damage to plaintiffs’ investment property could most justly be repaired by awarding the full value of the virtually destroyed property so that plaintiffs could replace their land held for investment with other similar land in the area, which they could likewise hold for investment.¹² Additionally, plaintiffs would be entitled to any other damages sustained, such as loss of use during a reasonable period to allow replacement, but no such damages were proved in this case.¹³

Notes

A similar, though less complicated, problem existed in . See footnote 2 on page 1234. In this connection see Black‘s Law Dictionary 4th Ed. Rev. 363 “concur” and W. & P., 588, 589, “concur” and “concurrence“. An expert appraiser estimated the value of the entire Grove 57 before the trespass at $17,500.00 and the value of the two parcels separated by the lake after the trespass at $11,456.00. The difference, $6,044.00, was the amount of the award. See ; .

The court noted that the two other items of specified damages (destruction of trees and loss of use) were not proved.

This court specifically declined to consider exceptions of res judicata and judicial estoppel, which had been overruled earlier by the trial court.

Between the 1957 trespass and the 1974 trial, a national real estate developer had purchased considerable acreage in eastеrn New Orleans, including tracts on all sides of Grove 57. The surrounding acreage was developed into Lake Forest Estates No. 1 and No. 2, the latter including lakefront lots which sold from $25,000.00 to $38,000.00 depending upon size and location. The subdivisions contained paved streets, utilities and country club facilities. The highest priced of the fully developed lots sold for $1.88 per square foot, or about $350.00 per front foot.

In the present case, where the dredging on Grove 57 took place over a number of weeks, there was a continuing tort until the dredging was concluded.

In this respect we distinguish those cases in which the defendant‘s trespass continues because the offending object (such as a building) remains on the premises. See Prosser, Law of Torts, Ch. 3, § 13, p. 74 (4th ed. 1971). The present case involves permanent injury to the land as a consequence of a tort which was completed in 1957.

This is the very basis upon which this сourt reversed the judgment maintaining the exception of prescription in the prior appeal in the present suit.

This pleading thus violated C.C.P. art. 425‘s prohibition of an obligee‘s dividing an obligation for the purpose of bringing separate actions on different portions of the obligation. The public policy purpose of the article (and of the doctrines of res judicata and estoppel by judgment) is to avoid a multiplicity of suits and to prevent harassment, delay and undue expense caused by multiple suits.

The court‘s recognition of plaintiffs’ right to later claim recovery of this item effectively permitted an improper division of an obligation.

In the prayer of their petition plaintiffs not only reserved the right to claim future damages for a continuing trespass (a claim which had no legal basis), but also reserved the right to seek indemnification of the cost of restorаtion (a claim which did have a legal basis and should have been asserted and determined in the prior suit). Because of this court‘s discussion of both reservations in the opinion, we broadly construe the reservation in the decree to apply to both reservations in the petition, although we believe the proper procedure would have been to avoid piecemeal litigation and to decide the entire case or remand the entire case.

C.C. art. 508 provides: “When plantations, constructions and works have been made by a third person, and with such person‘s own materials, the owner of the soil has a right to keep them or to compel this person to take away or demolish the same. If the owner requires the demolition of such works, they shall be demolished at the expense of the person who erected them, without any compensation; such person may even be sentenced to pay damages, if the case require it, for the prejudice which the owner of the soil may have sustained. If the owner keeps the works, he owes to the owner of the materials nothing but the reimbursement of their value and of the price of workmanship, without any regard to the greater or less value which the soil may have acquired thereby. Nevertheless, if the plantations, edifices or works have been made by a third person evicted, but not sentenced to make restitution of the fruits, because such person possessed bona fide, the owner shall not have a right to demand the demolition of the works, plantations or edifices, but he shall have his choice either to reimburse the value of the materials and the price of workmanship, or to reimburse a sum equal to the enhanced value of the soil.”

We specificаlly do not intend to limit damages caused by trespass to the value of the property. The method of reparation used in this case will not achieve justice in all cases of tort-caused damage to land, and the total cost of restoration will sometimes be the proper method of reparation. However, the 1957 cost of restoration (which expert testimony established at almost $200,000.00) is totally unrealistic in this case. It is absolutely inconceivable that plaintiffs, if they had been awarded the cost of restoration at the time of the tort in this case, would have used an award in that amount to restore the property. This consideration alone suggests that the cost of restoration is not the proper method of restoring the tort victim to the position he enjoyed before the trespass. If the property could have been restored for $36,000.00 (as assertеd by T. L. James’ unacceptable evidence in the first trial), there would be a much stronger argument for cost of restoration as the proper method of reparation, even though that cost exceeded the value of the property. If plaintiffs lived on the property, our decision might be different. But our decision as to method of reparation is based on consideration of all existing facts.

For an intentional trespass plaintiffs would also be entitled to an award for mental anguish, which is considered as compensatory damages in intentional trespass cases. ; ; . In this case, however, the court in the original proceeding found the trespass was unintentional, and we decline to readjudicate that issue.

We note that a similar enhancement in value probably has occurred in other property in the area which could have been bought to replace this virtually destroyed property.

We have doubts as to the validity of the appraisal which established this value, because market value is affected by events such as the beginning of the construction of an interstate highway in the area, and the appraisal did not reflect this anticipated increase in market ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍value on the investment property. However, this was the only appraisal which was presented at the original hearing, and the trial court accepted this appraised value as the value of the property. We accordingly decline to reinquire into the value of the property in 1957.

We also note that in the earlier decision of this court on the exception of prescription, we held that prescription was interrupted by the original demand. This consideration strengthens our conclusion that the proper method of reparation is by the reference to the 1957 value rather than the 1974 value of the property.