Even though concluding the existence of harm and the reason behind it are part of facts that the trial court has the sole discretion to estimate based on the evidence, it remains conditioned by demonstrating reasons leading to its conclusion. The court’s decision was not well grounded when it relied on the expert witness and ruled in disagreement with it in specifying the source of harm that resulted from one chimney without any used case documents to state otherwise, as well as when it ruled on compensation for harm without showing any elements used. Also, the court breached the law and ruled for more than the plaintiff asked when it ruled on removing the harm done by the three chimneys even though the plaintiff’s requests focused on removing harm caused by one chimney.

Decision overruled