Case Title: STATE HIGHWAY COMM N v BELDON

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1975-02-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 12745 I N T H E S U P R E M E C O U R T O F T H E STATE O F MONTANA T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A , ACTING BY AND THROUGH T H E STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION O F T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A , P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, MARY A. SMITH BELDON, D O N A L D J. and GERTRUDE SMITH, husband and wife, JOAN E. SMITH PENDERGAST, and the FEDERAL L A N D BANK O F SPOKANE, Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of the Second J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable John B. McClernan, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record : For Appellant : Daniel J. Sullivan and James Driscoll, Helena, Montana James Driscoll argued, Helena, Montana For Respondent : Corette, Smith and Dean, Butte, Montana Kendrick Smith argued, Butte, Montana Submitted : January 13, 19 75 Decided : FEB - - 1 9 1 c J 7 S , Filed : - ; ? I @ M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison delivered the Opinion of the Court . This i s an appeal by the State Highway Commission from a jury verdict rendered i n a condemnation action. The taking con- s i s t e d of 61.4 acres f o r the construction of a highway and 7.7 acres f o r construction permits and easements. The condemned land i s included within a ranch located a short distance e a s t of the community of Melrose, Montana. The new i n t e r s t a t e highway crosses through t h e ranch from north t o south f o r a distance of approxi- mately one mile and roughly b i s e c t s the ranch. The jury awarded compensation i n the amount of $97,000 which included $30,000 f o r the value of the land taken and $67,000 a s depreciation t o t h e remainder. A t t r i a l three witnesses t e s t i f i e d a s t o j u s t compensation f o r the landowners and two t e s t i f i e d on behalf of the State. The valuations placed upon the condemned land and the damages t o t h e remainder can best be summarized by the use of t h i s chart: LANDOWNER'S WITNESSES Value of Land Taken Depreciation Total 1. DonaldSmith $55,575 2. Ralph Potts 52,650 3. Joe Buyan 52,650 STATE'S WITNESSES 1. Russell Gasser 18,000 2. Robert Shedd 19,700 *Includes an additional amount of $18,800 f o r "cost t o cure". O n appeal the only e r r o r alleged by the State concerns In- struction No. 21 given by the d i s t r i c t court. This instruction reads : I ' You a r e instructed t h a t you may not award compen- sation i n excess of the amount of $137,790.00 which is the highest appraisal on behalf of the defendants; nor may your verdict be l e s s than the sum of $48,800.00, the amount of the lowest testimony offered by the S t a t e of Montana i n t h i s matter. < he burden of proof is upon the defendants to prove they are entitled to an amount greater than $48,800.00, which is the lowest testimony offered by the State in this matter. 11 The issue is whether the district court committed reversible error necessitating a new trial by placing the sum of $48,800 as the lowest testimony of the State when one of the State's appraisers, Russell Gasser, testified to a figure of $38,200. The State asserts Instruction No. 21 is erroneous because it removed Russell ~asser's testimony from the jury's consideration and cites in support 75 Am,Jur 2d, Trial, § 655, which states: "A party is entitled to have the jury consider all the evi.dence properly before them in arriving at their verdict, and an instruction is erroneous if it ignores any material, conflicting, or qualifying evidence which the jury are bound to consider in forming their verdict, or if it withdraws from their considera- tion any evidence, however weak, tending to establish material facts. * * *I1. In determining why the trial court did not use the lowest figure testified to we set forth the sequence of events that transpired while the instructions were being settled: "THE COURT: The Court proposes to give Instruction No. 21 tendered by the landowners. "MR. SMITH: May the record show that the landowners submitted Instruction D21 with the blank spaces left blank and has inserted as its offer of the instruction only the higher amount of $137,790.00. The specific objection to which the landowner is now objecting is the insertion of the sum of $38,200.00 where there is testimony by one of the state's own witnesses, Mr. Rohert Shedd, that just compensation should be in the higher amount of $48,800.00 and that it is not fair, proper, legal, equitable or just for the State to seek to get the lowest amount of its lowest witness when it has testimony by another witness for a higher amount of $10,600.00 or more. "THE COURT : Ob j ec tion sustained. ' ' M R . SULLIVAN: Could we be heard on it for just a minute. I think the lowest testimony of just compen- sation by the Defendants if (sic) approximately One Hundred Twenty-One. "MR. SMITH: One Hundred Twenty-one what? "MR. SULLIVAN: Thousand. Somebody had $121,000.00. "MR. SMITH: That is correct. "MR. SULLIVAN: If that is the case, the same thing would work that way, that this is some $16,000.00 less. "THE COURT: What did you say, what i s the figure? "MR, SMITH: $48,800.00. "THE COURT: The Court now proposes t o give Instruction No. 21 a s amended, "MR. SULLIVAN: W e would object t o t h i s on the grounds and f o r the reason t h a t a witness f o r the Defendant has t e s t i f i e d t h a t the highest j u s t compensation i s $121,000.00. This i s a rounded figure. That t h i s obviously i s approximately $16,000.00 l e s s than the high figure now being offered and therefore since t h i s i s j u s t compensation as asked f o r by the Defendant, the figure given a s the high one should not exceed the lowest amount t e s t i f i e d t o by the Defendants. "THE COURT: Overruled. I I In trying t o understand why the t r i a l court did not i n s e r t the lowest figure t e s t i f i e d t o it would appear t h a t a s a t r i a l t a c t i c , counsel f o r the S t a t e t r i e d t o get the middle figure of $121,075 i n t o Instruction No. 21, r a t h e r than the $137,790 figure and i n so doing t o lower the maximum by some $16,000. H e appears t o have been willing t o l e t h i s lowest figure go by the board so a s t o s t r i k e down the landowners' highest figure. I f t h i s were h i s t a c t i c , it did not work o r i t so confused the t r i a l court t h a t the Gasser testimony was overlooked. It was the s t a t e ' s duty t o see t h a t the t r i a l court did not m i s s the proper figures. The landowners argue the S t a t e i s precluded from contending the c o u r t ' s view was erroneous. In view of the apparent confusion the time of s e t t l i n g of instructions there i s no merit t o t h e i r position. Rule 51, M.R.Civ.P., concerning instructions t o the jury, s t a t e s i n part: "* * * Objections made s h a l l specify and s t a t e the p a r t i c u l a r grounds on which the instruction is objected t o and i t s h a l l not be s u f f i c i e n t i n s t a t i n g the ground of such objection t o s t a t e generally the instruc- t i o n does not s t a t e the law o r i s against the law, but such ground of objection s h a l l specify p a r t i c u l a r l y wherein the instruction i s i n s u f f i c i e n t o r does not s t a t e the law, o r what p a r t i c u l a r clause therein i s objected to. * * *"* The purpose of Rule 51, M.R.Civ.P., i s t o give the d i s t r i c t court judge an opportunity t o correct h i s own errors. This Court has repeatedly held t h a t objections t o instructions cannot be heard on appeal unless they were i n i t i a l l y raised i n the t r i a l court. Seder v. Kiewit sons' Co., 156 Mont. 322, 479 P.2d 448; Salvail v. Great Northern Railway Co., 156 Mont. 12, 473 P.2d 549; Cross v. Trethe-, 155 Mont. 337, 471 P.2d 538. Here, on appeal, the S t a t e argues the instruction was erroneous because it prevented the S t a t e from having t h e jury con- s i d e r the testimony of one of i t s expert witnesses and it prevented t h e State from presenting i t s theory of the case. However, neither of these objections was c l e a r l y raised i n the t r i a l court. Accordingly, we decline t o reverse the d i s t r i c t court on an erroneous instruction when the objection t o that instruction was not d i s t i n c t l y stated. The judgment of the d i s t r i c t court i s affirmed. / / Chief J u s t i c e / Justices. I