Case Title: Boylan v. BOARD OF COUNTY COM'RS OF CASS COUNTY

Citation: 105 N.W.2d 329

Docket Number: 

State: north-dakota

Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

Date: 1960-10-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
105 N.W.2d 329 (1960) Thomas BOYLAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF CASS COUNTY, North Dakota, North Dakota State Highway Department, and A. W. Wentz, Defendants and Respondents. No. 7857. Supreme Court of North Dakota. October 3, 1960. Ohnstad, Twichell & Maxwell, West Fargo, for plaintiff and appellant. *330 Leslie R. Burgum, Atty. Gen., and Francis Breidenbach, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendants and respondents. BURKE, Judge. This is a proceeding instituted, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 24-01, 1957 Supp. NDRC 1943, to acquire land for highway purposes. The tract of land belonging to the appellant comprised 8.66 acres which were needed for right of way for Interstate Highway 94 and the location of an interchange thereon. The Board of County Commissioners of Cass County, after due notice and hearing, determined that appellant's damages, as a result of the taking of the tract, amounted to $4,914. Appellant appealed from the decision of the county commissioners. Upon a trial in district court a jury returned a verdict in appellant's favor in the sum of $5,874. Judgment was entered upon the verdict and this appeal is from the judgment. There are two specifications of error. The first specifies error upon the admission of expert testimony of the witness King and the second relates to ten separate references, in the court's instructions to the jury, to the allowance of benefits from the improvement in mitigation of appellant's damages. During the trial of the case it was conceded by all parties that one of the elements of appellant's damages was the cost of building a new road from the buildings upon his land to the interchange which would give him access to Highway 94. An expert called to testify on behalf of appellant estimated that the cost of such a road would be $3,000. Robert E. King, an appraiser for the State Highway Department, was called as a witness for respondent. The following is an extract from his testimony: Appellant contends that the admission of this testimony was error because the foundation did not establish sufficient qualification on the part of the witness to permit him to express an expert opinion. The foundation, however, did establish that the witness had passed the examination given to candidates for a degree in engineering, that he was a member of the North Dakota Society of Professional Engineers and that in his employment he had computed the cost of similar roads. The question of whether a witness is qualified to give expert testimony is one which is largely within the discretion of the presiding judge. City of Bismarck v. Casey, 77 N.D. 295, 43 N.W.2d 372, 373; Otter Tail Power Company v. Malme, N.D., 92 N.W.2d 514; Fisher v. Suko, N.D., 98 N.W.2d 895. Here the foundation had established sufficient expertise on the part of the witness to bring the ruling, allowing him to testify to an opinion, well within the limits of the trial judge's discretion. Upon the issue of the benefits which might accrue to appellant's property by reason of its proximity to an interchange upon an interstate highway, the expert for the State Highway Department testified as follows: It is urged by appellant that, since the foregoing is the only testimony in the record as to the nature or value of any benefits, it was error for the trial judge to submit the issue of the value of such prospective benefits to the jury. We are agreed that this contention must be sustained. The prospective benefits were of such a nature that the expert, himself, found it impossible to place dollar valuation on them. To have asked the jury to evaluate benefits, which a trained appraiser found impossible to evaluate, and without any evidence whatever as to their dollar value was to submit the issue of the value of benefits to conjecture and speculation. The state of the evidence here is practically identical with that which existed in Phillips v. State, 167 Neb. 541, 93 N.W.2d 635. In that case the court stated (at pages 636, 637): We are agreed that, under the evidence in this case, it was error for the trial court to submit the issue of benefits to the jury. Because of the form of the jury's verdict, however, this error will not necessarily affect the entire judgment. The verdict itemized the amounts for the separate elements of damage and benefits. Thus the value of the land actually taken was found to be $1,299; the damages to the remainder of appellant's tract was found to be $5,595; the benefits were assessed at $1,000, and the net verdict was for the sum of $5,874. Since the error in submitting the issue of benefits to the jury could have prejudiced appellant only to the extent of $1,000, it is ordered, that if respondent will agree to increase the amount of the judgment to $6,874 the judgment, as amended, will be affirmed, otherwise a new trial is granted. SATHRE, C. J., and MORRIS, STRUTZ and TEIGEN, JJ., concur.