{ "id": 11916130, "name": "DEBORAH BLUM AND SHELLEY BLUM, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. ROBERT G. WORLEY AND HARRIET M. WORLEY, Defendants-Appellees", "name_abbreviation": "Blum v. Worley", "decision_date": "1995-12-19", "docket_number": "No. COA95-54", "first_page": "166", "last_page": "170", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "121 N.C. App. 166" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "354 S.E.2d 277", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "279" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "85 N.C. App. 262", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 12169805 ], "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "265" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/85/0262-01" ] }, { "cite": "257 S.E.2d 219", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "297 N.C. 611", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8572699, 8572745, 8572781, 8572718, 8572763 ], "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/297/0611-01", "/nc/297/0611-03", "/nc/297/0611-05", "/nc/297/0611-02", "/nc/297/0611-04" ] }, { "cite": "252 S.E.2d 837", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "40 N.C. App. 310", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8550237 ], "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/40/0310-01" ] }, { "cite": "119 S.E.2d 616", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1961, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "620" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "254 N.C. 582", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8627264 ], "year": 1961, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "587" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/254/0582-01" ] }, { "cite": "148 S.E. 36", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1929, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "37", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "197 N.C. 189", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8627884 ], "year": 1929, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "191", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/197/0189-01" ] }, { "cite": "337 S.E.2d 857", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "quoting Foster v. Hyman, 197 N.C. 189, 191, 148 S.E. 36, 37 (1929) (citations omitted)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "315 N.C. 184", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4716614, 4715527, 4720072, 4718508, 4717904 ], "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "quoting Foster v. Hyman, 197 N.C. 189, 191, 148 S.E. 36, 37 (1929) (citations omitted)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/315/0184-03", "/nc/315/0184-04", "/nc/315/0184-02", "/nc/315/0184-01", "/nc/315/0184-05" ] }, { "cite": "333 S.E.2d 758", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "761", "parenthetical": "quoting Foster v. Hyman, 197 N.C. 189, 191, 148 S.E. 36, 37 (1929) (citations omitted)" }, { "page": "761" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "76 N.C. App. 427", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8527412 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "431", "parenthetical": "quoting Foster v. Hyman, 197 N.C. 189, 191, 148 S.E. 36, 37 (1929) (citations omitted)" }, { "page": "431" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/76/0427-01" ] }, { "cite": "454 S.E.2d 652", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1995, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "340 N.C. 113", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 790208, 790112, 790085, 790184 ], "year": 1995, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/340/0113-01", "/nc/340/0113-04", "/nc/340/0113-02", "/nc/340/0113-03" ] }, { "cite": "449 S.E.2d 34", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 6, "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "38" }, { "page": "36" }, { "page": "38" }, { "page": "36" }, { "page": "39" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "116 N.C. App. 584", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8525070 ], "weight": 5, "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "589" }, { "page": "589" }, { "page": "590-91" }, { "page": "591" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/116/0584-01" ] }, { "cite": "197 S.E.2d 524", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1973, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "528" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "283 N.C. 656", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8559739 ], "year": 1973, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "660" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/283/0656-01" ] }, { "cite": "254 S.E.2d 7", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "9", "parenthetical": "quoting Smith v. VonCannon, 283 N.C. 656, 660, 197 S.E.2d 524, 528 (1973)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "297 N.C. 163", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8567352 ], "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "167", "parenthetical": "quoting Smith v. VonCannon, 283 N.C. 656, 660, 197 S.E.2d 524, 528 (1973)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/297/0163-01" ] }, { "cite": "192 S.E.2d 1", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "2" }, { "page": "2", "parenthetical": "emphasis added" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "16 N.C. App. 429", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8551859 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "430" }, { "page": "430" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/16/0429-01" ] }, { "cite": "452 S.E.2d 806", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "338 N.C. 514", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2519559, 2521484, 2518991, 2520368, 2517306 ], "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/338/0514-04", "/nc/338/0514-02", "/nc/338/0514-03", "/nc/338/0514-05", "/nc/338/0514-01" ] }, { "cite": "443 S.E.2d 737", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "739" }, { "page": "739" }, { "page": "739" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "115 N.C. App. 134", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 12123351 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "136" }, { "page": "136" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/115/0134-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 617, "char_count": 11337, "ocr_confidence": 0.751, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.0148355842105187e-07, "percentile": 0.5431801236288293 }, "sha256": "46bfc37fd4b927f038bff5b961be815fefa0fc93330d79a9f153dfe8b808cb8f", "simhash": "1:8fc8746b7dc72c96", "word_count": 1821 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:54:48.563497+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Chief Judge ARNOLD and Judge GREENE concur." ], "parties": [ "DEBORAH BLUM AND SHELLEY BLUM, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. ROBERT G. WORLEY AND HARRIET M. WORLEY, Defendants-Appellees" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "SMITH, Judge.\nPlaintiffs bring forward three assignments of error based on the failure of the trial court to give requested jury instructions. The requested, but denied instructions, include those for: (1) punitive damages; (2) intrinsic value damages resulting from defendants\u2019 trespass; and (3) use of criminal statutes regarding trespass to land.\nWe agree the trial court erred in its refusal to charge on the punitive damages issue. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial on punitive damages. However, we find plaintiffs\u2019 other assignments of error without merit and affirm the judgment of the trial court on those issues.\nDefendants contracted to purchase a double-wide mobile home. The mobile home was to be delivered and set up on property owned by defendants. However, to get to defendants\u2019 property, the mobile home had to pass along a private road running across plaintiffs\u2019 property. Defendants requested and received permission to transport the mobile home across plaintiffs\u2019 property via the road. The scope of that permission is contested by the parties. Defendants argue that the permission given allowed them to \u201c[d]o what [was] necessary to get the house up the road.\u201d Plaintiffs maintain the permission given was expressly limited to cutting tree limbs impeding passage of the mobile home; no trees were to be cut down. Plaintiffs assert that defendants assured them the road was wide enough for unobstructed passage, save for some minor tree limbs.\nDuring the attempted delivery, it became apparent that plaintiffs\u2019 road was not wide enough to allow for unobstructed passage of the mobile home. Defendants maintain trees, undergrowth, and assorted debris on plaintiffs\u2019 property blocked passage of the mobile home. Due to the impasse created by the obstructions, defendants procured the use of a bulldozer, and flattened interfering areas alongside the road.\nThe amount of damage to plaintiffs\u2019 property is contested. Plaintiffs\u2019 evidence tends to show extensive damage was done to the property, including destruction of fifty young black walnut trees. Defendants admit to \u201ctaking out\u201d three or four trees, a linden tree, and assorted debris in the course of moving the mobile home.\nPlaintiffs bring forth three assignments of error. The first two assignments of error address the trial court\u2019s refusal to charge the jury on: (1) the issue of punitive damages; and (2) damages from the loss of the land\u2019s intrinsic value, i.e., the land\u2019s aesthetics, the black walnut saplings and the linden tree. Plaintiffs\u2019 third assignment of error addresses the trial court\u2019s refusal to take judicial notice of criminal statutes regarding trespass to land, and the trial court\u2019s denial of an instruction based on these same criminal statutes.\nPlaintiffs\u2019 complaint alleged that defendants\u2019 acted \u201cwillfully, deliberately, intentionally and tortiously . . . damaging the quality of [plaintiffs\u2019] land by trespassing. The complaint also alleged defendants\u2019 conduct was \u201cin reckless disregard of plaintiff\u2019s rights.\u201d At trial, plaintiff presented evidence indicating the bulldozer operator was told by defendant Robert Worley \u201cto do whatever was necessary\u201d to get the mobile home through the property. Defendant Robert Worley admits making this statement. Further, the record indicates defendant told plaintiff Deborah Blum that he \u201cjust cut three\u201d trees, and that the trees were no bigger than a circle made by touching thumb to index finger. Testimony by the defendant indicates that he watched and directed the bulldozer operator, as the operator trammeled several trees.\nPlaintiffs in this case requested punitive damages instructions twice, requests which were refused by the trial court. The rules regarding disposition of jury instruction requests are well-settled. In reviewing the trial court\u2019s decision to give or not give a jury instruction, the preliminary inquiry is whether, in the light most favorable to the proponent, the evidence presented is sufficient to support a reasonable inference of the elements of the claim asserted. Anderson v. Austin, 115 N.C. App. 134, 443 S.E.2d 737, 739, disc. review denied, 338 N.C. 514, 452 S.E.2d 806 (1994).\nOnce a party has aptly tendered a request for a specific instruction, correct in itself and supported by the evidence, failure of the trial court to render such instruction, in substance at least, is error. Faeber v. E.C.T. Corp., 16 N.C. App. 429, 430, 192 S.E.2d 1, 2 (1972); 28 Strong\u2019s N.C. Index 4th Trial \u00a7 300 (1994). Further,\n[i]t is the duty of the trial court to charge the law applicable to the substantive features of the case arising on the evidence, without special requests, and to apply the law to the various factual situations presented by the conflicting evidence.\nFaeber, 16 N.C. App. at 430, 192 S.E.2d at 2 (emphasis added); Austin, 115 N.C. App. at 136, 443 S.E.2d at 739; 28 Strong\u2019s N.C. Index 4th Trial \u00a7 311 (1994).\nPlaintiffs\u2019 cause of action, in common law trespass against defendants, is based on the following:\n\u201c[o]ne who enters upon the land of another with the consent of the possessor may, by his subsequent wrongful act in excess or abuse of his authority to enter, become liable in damages as a trespasser.\u201d\nBlackwood v. Cates, 297 N.C. 163, 167, 254 S.E.2d 7, 9 (1979) (quoting Smith v. VonCannon, 283 N.C. 656, 660, 197 S.E.2d 524, 528 (1973)). The jury in the instant case found the defendants culpable of this civil offense. However, commission of this sort of trespass, in and of itself, would not justify a punitive damages instruction. Lee v. Bir, 116 N.C. App. 584, 449 S.E.2d 34, 38 (1994), cert. denied, 340 N.C. 113, 454 S.E.2d 652 (1995). In Bir, this Court held that when \u201cmore than a scintilla of evidence exist[s] from which the jury could find that defendant\u2019s trespass was accompanied by a reckless disregard for [the landowner\u2019s] rights,\u201d a punitive damages charge is warranted. Bir, 116 N.C. App. at 589, 449 S.E.2d at 36.\nThe evidence presented by plaintiffs, viewed in a light most favorable to them, showed more than mere common law trespass. Plaintiffs\u2019 evidence tended to reinforce allegations in their complaint, pointing toward property damage \u201c \u2018done knowingly and of set purpose.\u2019 \u201d King v. Allred, 76 N.C. App. 427, 431, 333 S.E.2d 758, 761, disc. review denied, 315 N.C. 184, 337 S.E.2d 857 (1985) (quoting Foster v. Hyman, 197 N.C. 189, 191, 148 S.E. 36, 37 (1929) (citations omitted)). The evidence tends to show that defendants went far beyond the scope of permission given by plaintiffs, resulting in extensive harm to plaintiffs\u2019 property.\nAfter inflicting wholesale damage to the property, the evidence indicates defendants\u2019 description of that damage to plaintiffs was disingenuous at best. Such acts, viewed favorably toward plaintiffs, support the view that defendants conducted themselves in \u201creckless disregard for plaintiff[s\u2019] rights.\u201d Lee v. Bir, 116 N.C. App. at 589, 449 S.E.2d at 38. Further, plaintiffs have shown more than a \u201cscintilla\u201d in support of their requested punitive damages instruction. The evidence presented by plaintiffs is of a kind from which reasonable jurors could infer that defendants\u2019 damage was \u201cwilful\u201d or \u201cdeliberate.\u201d King, 76 N.C. App. at 431, 333 S.E.2d at 761.\nBased on this evidence, and other testimony in the record, we find that plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence to support a charge for punitive damages. Thus, the trial court should have given a punitive damages instruction.\nNext, plaintiffs appeal from the trial court\u2019s decision not to instruct the jury on damages done to the \u201cintrinsic value\u201d of the land. Instructions on damage done to the intrinsic or aesthetic value of land are appropriate in certain circumstances. Bir, 116 N.C. App. at 590-91, 449 S.E.2d at 36. Again, the rule is that an instruction request must be preceded by evidence sufficient to support the desired charge. Austin, 115 N.C. App. at 136, 443 S.E.2d at 739.\nIn Bir, the proponents of an instruction on intrinsic or aesthetic value presented an expert witness to buttress their damage claim. Bir, 116 N.C. App. at 591, 449 S.E.2d at 39. There, an architect testified that the \u201ccutting of trees affected the aesthetic value of [plaintiffs] property\u201d by making the defendant\u2019s house more visible and proximate to the plaintiffs residence and property. Id. In the instant case, no such authoritative evidence was presented.\nIn their brief, plaintiffs argue that plaintiff Deborah Blum\u2019s testimony about being a \u201csteward on the land\u201d is enough to support the aesthetic value instruction requested. It is long-settled that damages will not be had where the evidence is purely speculative or conjectural. Godwin v. Vinson, 254 N.C. 582, 587, 119 S.E.2d 616, 620 (1961). Plaintiff Blum\u2019s testimony, unsupported by anything more, is too ephemeral to support such a damage instruction. The trial court did not err in refusing this instruction.\nPlaintiffs\u2019 final assignment of error concerns the trial court\u2019s refusal to take judicial notice of, and to give instructions based on, criminal trespass statutes. Plaintiffs have not supported this assignment of error with any case law remotely on point. The Court has reviewed the only case cited in support of this assignment, Moye v. Thrifty Gas Co., 40 N.C. App. 310, 252 S.E.2d 837, disc. review denied, 297 N.C. 611, 257 S.E.2d 219 (1979). Moye does not discuss the use of criminal statutes in a relevant fashion in any meaningful sense. Therefore, plaintiffs\u2019 assignment of error is deemed abandoned. See Byrne v. Bordeaux, 85 N.C. App. 262, 265, 354 S.E.2d 277, 279 (1987); N.C.R. App. P. 28(b)(5) (1995).\nIn summary, we find error in the trial court\u2019s failure to give a punitive damages instruction, as the evidence supported plaintiffs\u2019 request. Thus, we grant a new trial on punitive damages. We affirm the trial court on the remaining two assignments of error.\nNew trial on the punitive damage issue. On remaining issues, the trial court is affirmed.\nChief Judge ARNOLD and Judge GREENE concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "SMITH, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Shelley Blum and Deborah Blum, pro se, for plaintiff appellants.", "Bailey and Bailey, by G. D. Bailey and J. Todd Bailey, for defendant appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "DEBORAH BLUM AND SHELLEY BLUM, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. ROBERT G. WORLEY AND HARRIET M. WORLEY, Defendants-Appellees\nNo. COA95-54\n(Filed 19 December 1995)\nTrespass \u00a7\u00a7 28, 51 (NCI4th)\u2014 transporting mobile home across land \u2014 damage to trees and undergrowth \u2014 failure to instruct on punitive damages \u2014 error\nThe trial court erred in failing to give a punitive damages instruction where the evidence tended to show that defendants, who had been given permission to transport a mobile home on a road traversing plaintiffs\u2019 property, trimming small limbs if need be, in fact inflicted wholesale damages to the property by using a bulldozer to flatten numerous trees and undergrowth alongside the road; however, the court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on damages done to the intrinsic or aesthetic value of the land where the evidence was too ephemeral to support such a damage instruction, and in refusing to instruct on criminal trespass statutes.\nAm Jnr 2d, Trespass \u00a7\u00a7 148-152, 157-161.\nAppeal by plaintiffs from judgment entered 16 September 1994 by Judge Julia Jones in Mitchell County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 29 September 1995.\nShelley Blum and Deborah Blum, pro se, for plaintiff appellants.\nBailey and Bailey, by G. D. Bailey and J. Todd Bailey, for defendant appellees." }, "file_name": "0166-01", "first_page_order": 200, "last_page_order": 204 }