Opinion
March 7, 1939.
April 12, 1939.
Appeals — Review — Order refusing new trial — Excessive verdict — Discretion of court below — Damages for taking of land.
On appeal from the refusal of a new trial applied for on the ground that the verdict was excessive in an action for damages resulting from the taking of land in connection with the relocation of a highway, the appellate court will not interfere with the judgment of the lower court, unless it feels that the verdict was so excessive that the refusal of the court below to grant a new trial was a clear and manifest abuse of discretion, or was unconscionable and shocking to the appellate court's sense of justice.
Appeal, No. 40, Feb. T., 1939, from judgment of C.P. Wayne Co., Jan. T., 1937, No. 54, in case of Walter P. Billard et al. v. Honesdale Borough.
Before KELLER, P.J., CUNNINGHAM, BALDRIGE, STADTFELD, PARKER and RHODES, JJ. Judgment affirmed.
Appeal from award of viewers. Before SWOYER, P.J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.
Verdict and judgment for plaintiffs in sum of $1,750. Defendant appealed.
Errors assigned were refusal of new trial and entry of judgment on the verdict.
Lester R. Male, with him Walter L. Harris, for appellant.
Leigh B. Maxwell, for appellees, was not heard.
Argued March 7, 1939.
This was an appeal by the plaintiffs from an award of viewers in connection with the relocation of State Highway Route No. 6 in the Borough of Honesdale. The only assignment of error is to the refusal of defendant's motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was "exorbitantly excessive and out of all proportion to the actual damage suffered."
As relocated the new highway took nearly all of the plaintiffs' lot not occupied by buildings, and the rear of the dwelling house now fronts on the highway. The trial jury viewed the property.
The testimony of the husband plaintiff was that the fair market value of the property immediately before the change of location of the road was $3000, and immediately after, $1000, or damage of $2000.
Defendant's witnesses placed the damage at from $400 to $600.
The verdict was for $1750.
The trial judge who saw and heard the witnesses and was familiar with the premises did not think the verdict excessive.
The appellate court, in such a case, will not interfere with the judgment of the lower court, unless it feels that the verdict was so excessive that the refusal of the court below to grant a new trial was a clear and manifest abuse of discretion, (Harrisburg, Carlisle Chambersburg Turnpike Road Co. v. Cumberland County, 225 Pa. 467, 469, 74 A. 340; Jordan v. Clearfield County, 107 Pa. Super. 441, 449, 164 A. 98; Brewer v. Blue Mt. Cons. Water Co., 126 Pa. Super. 553, 560, 191 A. 408), or was unconscionable and shocking to the appellate court's sense of justice, (Baymond v. Sternberger, 116 Pa. Super. 451, 176 A. 787; Eberhardt v. Shaler Twp., 127 Pa. Super. 477, 480, 193 A. 364; Brown v. Paxton, 332 Pa. 260, 264, 2 A.2d 729), which is not the case here.
Judgment affirmed.