## Facts

- William Dean Myers and Anna J. Myers purchased a 20-acre tract near Leroy, Illinois, and began building a residence on the west portion of the property.
- A creek running through the property caused erosion, and the Myerses believed broken concrete could be used as fill to address the problem.
- In fall 1974, Anna Myers contacted Howard Arnold (president of Howard Arnold Construction, Inc.) about obtaining concrete from a nearby road project; she was directed to the job-site supervisor.
- Mrs. Myers testified she requested only “a couple of loads” of broken concrete and preferred it not include rubble or dirt; she showed the supervisor where to dump it.
- Arnold testified Mrs. Myers said she could use “a lot” of concrete and could take all the concrete the company had.
- Approximately 60–80 truckloads of concrete were dumped on the Myerses’ land, including an area intended as a future homesite.
- After the Myerses asked the defendants to remove the excess concrete and were refused, they sued for the resulting damage and the cost to restore the land.

## Issues

1. Whether the proper measure of damages for injury to the land was the cost of restoration/repair or the diminution in market value.
2. Whether the trial court committed reversible error by excluding certain defense evidence (including evidence about alleged state “release” requirements and additional testimony on quantities delivered/requested).
3. Whether the jury’s verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

## Decision

- The Illinois Appellate Court, Fourth District, affirmed the judgment on the jury verdict.
- The court held the jury could be instructed to award damages based on reasonable restoration costs rather than being limited to diminution in market value.
- The court held the challenged evidentiary exclusions were within the trial court’s discretion and did not warrant reversal.
- The court held the verdict was supported by the evidence, including the jury’s resolution of conflicting testimony about consent and the extent of dumping.

## Legal Principles

- The objective of damages for injury to real property is to compensate the owner by placing the owner, as nearly as money can, in the position that would have existed absent the wrong.
- For property held for personal use (including residential use or planned residential use), restoration or repair costs may be an appropriate measure of damages when the injury is repairable and the cost is not disproportionate.
- A trial court has broad discretion over evidentiary rulings on relevance and prejudice; reversal requires a showing of prejudicial error.
- Credibility determinations and resolution of conflicting testimony are for the jury; an appellate court will not disturb a verdict unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence.

## Conclusion

The appellate court upheld a $12,000 verdict based on restoration costs after wrongful dumping of 60–80 loads of concrete, applying a compensatory damages approach that permits reasonable restoration damages for personally used residential property and deferring to the trial court’s evidentiary discretion and the jury’s factfinding.


Myers v. Arnold, 83 Ill. App. 3d 1, 403 N.E.2d 316 (Ill. App. Ct. 1980)