51 S.W.2d 915 | Ky. Ct. App. | 1932
Affirming.
This is an appeal from a judgment for $750 in favor of Sam Hanks for injuries to his property alleged to have been caused by soot, cinders, smoke, and jar from passing trains.
The situation disclosed by the evidence is this: Hanks owns a residence and storehouse at High Bridge, in Jessamine county. The railroad which formerly ran some distance from his property, was reconstructed in the year 1929, and its tracks were placed alongside of, and about 150 feet distant from, the property. Appellee and others testified that numerous trains passed each day, and they not only jarred his property, but cast thereon large quantities of soot, cinders, and smoke. Several witnesses testified that the market value of the property was depreciated by the operation of the railroad, and fixed the depreciation at from $500 to $2,500. As the injury was permanent, and only one recovery could be had, the court properly fixed the measure of damages *620
as the difference, if any, between the fair market value of the property at the time when it became, generally known that the defendants' tracks would be located where they are now and its fair market value just after the tracks were so located and trains operated thereon. Chesapeake O. Ry. Co. v. Smith, 51 S.W. 12, 21 Ky. Law Rep. 175; Chesapeake O. R. Co. v. Stein,
The evidence of certain witnesses is attacked on the ground of inconsistency, and the further ground that they were not qualified to testify as to market values. We deem it unnecessary to detail the evidence. The railroad offered no evidence on the question of injury, and even if we disregard all that the other witnesses said, the evidence of James R. Dorman, who had resided at High Bridge for many years, and was familiar with property values there, to the effect that the market value of the property in question was $5,000 before the injuries complained of, and from $3,000 to $3,300 after the construction of the tracks, was alone sufficient to sustain the verdict.
There is the further contention that the court should have modified the instruction on the measure of damages so as to exclude damages resulting from smoke and cinders thrown on the property by the force of the wind alone. It is true that we have held such a qualification proper. Henderson Belt R. Co. v. Dechamp,
Judgment affirmed.