At this juncture, the court cannot determine as a matter of law that Plaintiffs' cost-of-repair evidence is an unreasonable measure of damages. See Vermont Terminal Corp. v. Crane, 326 A.2d 158, 160 (1974) ("Where the evidence of damages is conflicting, the amount to be awarded rests in the judgment of the jury, and we will not disturb such a verdict if it may be justified upon any reasonable view of the evidence."). Because it is Defendant's burden under Langlois to introduce evidence regarding the proportionality of cost-of-repair evidence, the court reserves judgment regarding whether this evidence will be admissible at trial.

In cases where the evidence relating to damages is conflicting, the amount to be awarded is properly left to the fact finder, and this Court will not disturb the award if it can be justified upon any reasonable view of the evidence. Vermont Terminal Corp. v. Crane, 132 Vt. 589, 592, 326 A.2d 158, 160 (1974). Here, the record includes testimony by plaintiff Sweeney that he purchased his lot in January of 1977 for $12,000, that the value of his lot prior to the blocking of his easements was $35,000, and that this value decreased to $10,000 after the easements were blocked. The record also includes a deposition of plaintiff Crabbe in which he stated that he purchased his lot for $4,000, that the value of his lot was $30,000 before defendant's construction activities, and that this value decreased to $4,000 after construction was complete.

We conclude that the trial court had sufficient evidence before it to formulate on a rational basis the amount necessary to compensate the plaintiff for his damages. See VermontTerminal Corporation v. Crane, 132 Vt. 589, 326 A.2d 158 (1974). Judgment affirmed.