Skip to main content
· 2/20/1899

Hamilton v. Pittsburg, Bessemer & Lake Erie Railroad

Citations

  • 190 Pa. 51
  • 51 L.R.A. 319
  • 42 A. 369
  • 1899 Pa. LEXIS 978

Syllabus

<p>Railroads — Land damages — Special use of property — Charge of the court —Business profits — Risk from fire.</p> <p>In proceedings against a railroad company for damages for land condemned, where the tendency of plaintiffs’ evidence is to swell damages by reason of the special use of the property as a bottling plant, it is not error for the court to explain to the jury that the question is not as to the value of the property in the market solely as a bottling plant, but also whether its market value for any purpose has been depreciated by the construction of the railroad.</p> <p>In condemnation proceedings against a railroad it is error to admit evidence as to the expectation of future profits based upon an estimated saving from the construction of additional buildings which the plaintiffs had contemplated erecting upon the land.</p> <p>As to risk from fire, incident to the lawful operation of a road-, there are two theories on which the claimant for damages can properly argue such risk is material evidence in his favor: (1) He can claim the danger is so imminent that no man of common prudence would maintain his building in such proximity to the railroad. In that case he is entitled to the cost of removal of his building and its reconstruction in a safe place. (2) If the danger be not great either from the fireproof character of the structure or its distance from the railroad yet, if it can still be said there is some risk from fire by reason of the lawful operation of the road, he can claim that that fact depreciates the market value of the land entered upon. On either theory the value of the contents of the building at the time of the construction of the road is immaterial.</p> <p>In condemnation proceedings against a railroad the plaintiff cannot be asked whether the construction of the railroad will be beneficial to him as an owner. The inquiry must be limited as to whether it will be beneficial to the land.</p>

Judges: Dean, Fell, Green, Mitchell, Williams

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.