Ralston v. Sharon Hill Borough

Citations

• 43 Pa. Super. 280
• 1910 Pa. Super. LEXIS 41

Syllabus

<p>Sewers — Damages—Evidence—Eminent domain.</p> <p>1. On the trial of a feigned issue framed on an appeal from a report of viewers appointed to assess damages for the construction of a sewer, the right of the plaintiff to recover is limited to the damages arising from such injuries as were the direct, immediate and necessary or unavoidable consequences of the act of eminent domain itself, irrespective of the care or negligence in the performance thereof. If the injury results from negligence in the performance of the work, the remedy of the landowner is by an action of trespass.</p> <p>2. In a proceeding to assess damages for the construction of a sewer, the courts are without power to review the discretion of the municipality in adopting a plan for the location of the sewer. Evidence is therefore not admissible which tends to show that some other plan might have been more beneficial or less injurious.</p> <p>3. In assessing damages by the statutory proceeding for the taking of land for a sewer the jury may consider as entering into the element of damages, the amount of space occupied by the earth taken from the ditch, the travel of men and wagons along its course, the length of time occupied, and the character and value of the crops on the ground; but in considering such testimony they are not to consider any damages arising from negligence in the doing of the work.</p>