This is an appeal from a condemnation award for land taken by the Department of Transportation to widen highway U. S. 82 in Worth County. The sole enumeration is that the trial court erroneously charged the jury that consequential damages to the property not taken could be reduced by the amount of consequential benefits to the property, when there was no evidence of any consequential benefits. Held:
Appellants rely on
Theo v. Dept. of Transportation,
In the instant case while there was evidence of consequential damages there was absolutely no evidence of any consequential benefits to the property, much less the value thereof. Not being supported by any evidence, it was unnecessary for the trial court to give any charge on consequential benefits. Appellants have not shown whether or how they were harmed by the irrelevant *786 instruction, nor do we find that the jury could have been misled thereby.
“It is never error to give an inapplicable instruction if the court gave the correct rule of law and the irrelevant charge could not reasonably be calculated to prejudice the complaining party or mislead the jury. [Cit.]”
General GMC Trucks v. Crockett,
“ ‘An inappropriate charge, unless harmful, is not ground for a new trial. [Cits.] Appellant has not demonstrated how this charge has harmed him nor are we constrained to believe that the jury could have been led away by this one charge from the issues in the case.’ [Cit.]”
Bynum v. Standard Oil Co.,
Judgment affirmed.
