Myers v. Arnold

William and Anna Myers (plaintiffs) purchased a 20-acre tract of land, which was divided diagonally by a creek. The couple constructed and lived in a residence on the western portion of the land. The Myerses planned to eventually sell the residence and build another residence on the eastern portion of the property. The creek on the property created an erosion problem, and the Myerses thought that broken concrete could help fix it. According to Anna, she contacted Howard Arnold (defendant) and requested two loads of concrete, preferably without rubble or dirt. Arnold’s company delivered 60–80 truckloads of concrete and placed it in a location on the Myerses’ property where they planned to construct the second residence. The concrete contained reinforcing rods and was stacked eight feet high in some spots. Despite Anna’s request, Arnold refused to remove the excessive amount of concrete. The Myerses sued Arnold to recover the cost of repair. At trial, the Myerses presented evidence that the cost for removing the concrete would be $18,200, or possibly less if some material could be resold to local farmers. Arnold presented evidence that the market value of the Myerses’ property was largely undiminished by the fact that half an acre was covered by concrete. As requested by the Myerses, the jury was instructed that the proper measure of damages was the reasonable expense of removing the concrete. The trial court rejected Arnold’s proffered instruction, which would allow the jury to award diminution-in-value damages. The jury found in favor of the Myerses and awarded $12,000, representing cost of repair. Arnold appealed.