Title: Smith v. Mississippi State Highway Com'n
Citation: 423 So. 2d 808
Docket Number: 53493
State: Mississippi
Issuer: Mississippi Supreme Court
Date: December 8, 1982

423 So. 2d 808 (1982) Vernon SMITH, James G. Norman, Travis Wallace and Duran Barnes v. MISSISSIPPI STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION. No. 53493. Supreme Court of Mississippi. December 8, 1982. *809 Smith, Downs, Ross, Trapp &amp; Coleman, Donald Ray Downs, Corinth, for appellants. James P. Dean, Corinth, for appellee. En Banc. ROY NOBLE LEE, Justice, for the Court: A Special Court of Eminent Domain in Alcorn County, Honorable Neal B. Biggers, Jr., presiding, entered judgment for Vernon Smith, James G. Norman, Travis Wallace, and Duran Barnes, landowners, against the Mississippi State Highway Commission [Commission] in the sum of ninety-three thousand four hundred twenty-five dollars ($93,425.00) as compensation for the taking of 33.62 acres of land. The landowners, being aggrieved at the judgment, have appealed here and assign four (4) errors in the trial below: (1) The lower court erred in excluding the testimony of Betsy A. Hanson concerning the purchase of a lot in the subdivision. (2) The lower court erred in excluding certain photographs of comparable housing. (3) The lower court erred in granting Instruction P-2 which concerns inconvenience as an item of compensation. (4) The lower court erred in allowing the jury to view the property in the absence of the trial judge and court reporter. The appellants are owners and partners in the development of 207.5 acres in Alcorn County, known as the "Spring Valley Subdivision." On May 23, 1980, the Commission filed an application for a special court of eminent domain, pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated § 11-27-81, et seq. (Supp. 1981), to condemn 33.62 acres of said area and for the immediate possession of the property in order to construct a controlled access highway, together with an accompanying frontage road, in connection with U.S. Highway 45. The Commission's original statement of values filed June 2, 1980, estimated the total just compensation for the taking at one hundred thousand four hundred fifty dollars ($100,450). The appellants' statement of values states these same elements of damage at two hundred ninety-five thousand four hundred eighty-seven dollars ($295,487.00). The court appointed an independent appraiser to determine the compensation, and he fixed same at one hundred thirteen thousand dollars ($113,000). *810 Prior to the trial, the Commission amended its statement of values and lowered its estimate of compensation due the owners to sixty-three thousand three hundred fifty dollars ($63,350). During the trial, the Commission's experts testified to a higher figure, and the lower court granted a motion by the landowners (appellants) that the Commission's statement of values be amended to reflect the high amount of ninety-one thousand three hundred dollars ($91,300), which was sustained. The landowners were also allowed to amend their estimated compensation value to three hundred thirty-two thousand one hundred sixty dollars ($332,160). Three qualified expert appraisers testified for the Commission. Their values follow: In addition to the testimony of appellants and other lay witnesses, appellants introduced three qualified experts and appraisers (Vernon Smith, Landowner, being one of the witnesses) who testified to the value of the property: The jury, having heard all the evidence, viewed the property, received the instructions of the court, heard arguments of counsel, and returned a verdict for compensation in the amount of ninety-three thousand four hundred twenty-five dollars ($93,425.00). Did the lower court err in excluding the testimony of Betsy A. Hanson concerning the purchase of a lot in the subdivision? During the Commission's case in chief, one of its appraisers testified concerning the sell-off rate of lots in the Spring Valley Subdivision area, and compared their sale rates to other subdivisions. He gave his opinion that the causes for Spring Valley's lower sell-off rates were poor asphalt, open ditches, and sewage system. In order to rebut that claim, the appellants attempted to call Mrs. Betsy A. Hanson as a witness. According to the offer of proof, she would have testified that she and her husband had agreed to purchase a lot, but when they learned that the highway was taking the property involved here, they decided against it for that reason. The court sustained an objection to her testimony, in the following words: We are of the opinion that the testimony of Mrs. Hanson would single out and show the preference of one individual, which is not competent on the issue of damages and compensation, when other people probably have different preferences. Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Hillman, 195 So. 679 (Miss.), sugg. of err. overruled, 189 Miss. 850, 198 So. 565 (1940). *811 In addition, Duran Barnes, a landowner, testified that no lots had been sold after he told prospective buyers about the highway, and Vernon Smith testified that the people he took to see the property didn't want their house to be backed up on the highway. James Laughlin, an expert appraiser for the appellants, testified that the lots in Spring Valley Subdivision did not sell well because of the highway project. Therefore, the general situation, within the knowledge of persons who knew the property, was in evidence, and it was not error to exclude the testimony of Mrs. Hanson. Did the lower court err in excluding certain photographs of comparable properties? The appellants offered in evidence photographs of two houses in Patrick Subdivision, which subdivision was used as comparable property by the Commission's witnesses in arriving at compensation. Also, photographs of eleven houses that had been built in the Spring Valley Subdivision were offered. The court sustained objections to all said photographs. The appellants contend that the photographs of the two houses in Patrick Subdivision showed that the property did not compare favorably with the quality of housing in the Spring Valley Subdivision, and that the houses in Spring Valley Subdivision were superior to those in the other area. Neither the Commission nor the appellants offered in evidence any instrument constituting a restrictive covenant on either Spring Valley Subdivision or Patrick Subdivision. All appraisers for the Commission referred to the fact that there was a protective covenant on Spring Valley Subdivision. Appraiser Dillmore was vague as to the protective covenant and only stated that it was restricted to residential buildings, that some houses were restricted to not less than approximately fifteen hundred (1,500) square feet of heated space, some were restricted to about twelve hundred (1,200) square feet of heated space, that he believed the smallest house was approximately one thousand (1,000) square feet, and no mobile homes were permitted on the property. Appraiser Spencer testified that he had examined the restrictive covenant but he didn't recall it. He took into consideration, as a comparable, lots of the Spring Valley Subdivision which already had been sold. Appraiser Evans stated there was a protective covenant as to two hundred seven (207) acres but that covenants did not tend to increase or decrease the value of real estate. The lower court, in sustaining objections to the photographs, said: The property being condemned by the Commission constituted vacant lots and had no houses upon it. The jury viewed the property and could see houses which had already been built. The comparable sales used by the appraisal witnesses to support their estimates were adjusted upward. Appraiser Spencer for the Commission put values of four thousand dollars ($4,000) per lot on the property taken, which was the exact *812 per lot value for lots in Spring Valley Subdivision testified to by the appellant landowner Vernon Smith. The admissibility of photographs is within the sound discretion of the trial court and it has a wide latitude in admitting them. The trial court's ruling will not be held error unless there is a clear abuse of discretion. Nelson v. Phoenix of Hartford Insurance, 318 So. 2d 839 (Miss. 1975); Butler v. Chrestman, 264 So. 2d 812 (Miss. 1972); Crawford v. City of Meridian, 186 So. 2d 250 (Miss. 1966); 29 Am.Jur.2d Evidence, § 785, at 859 (1967). We are of the opinion that the lower court did not abuse its discretion in declining to admit the photographs in evidence and that it was not reversible error to sustain the objection to the photographs. Did the lower court err in granting Instruction P-2, which relates to inconvenience as an item of damage? The court granted Instruction P-2, requested by the Commission, which follows: Mississippi cases are conflicting as to whether or not such an instruction should be granted, and, under what circumstances it may be granted. The facts and circumstances of each case must be considered to determine whether or not it is proper to give the instruction. State Highway Commission v. Day, 181 Miss. 708, 180 So. 794 (1938). Inconvenience to the landowner as a result of taking the land is not in itself an element of damage unless such inconvenience amounts to damage that is special to the landowner and does not apply to the public generally. In Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Colonial Inn, 246 Miss. 422, 149 So. 2d 851 (1963) and Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Gipson, 240 So. 2d 620 (Miss. 1970), damages were allowed for elements that may be considered as inconvenience. In Colonial Inn, a 52-unit motel was situated on a small tract of land extremely close to the highway. This Court held that the defendants were entitled to compensation for injuries to it caused by noise, vibrations, and increased proximity to highway traffic, not as a distinct element of damages, but as affecting the market value of the property. The appraisal witness gave his opinion that the motel would suffer some inconvenience due to the close proximity of the highway. In Gipson, the highway was constructed within fifty-three (53) feet of the defendant's home, which was situated on a lot one hundred eighty-three (183) feet by one hundred forty-two (142) feet, and it was held that the market value of the property in that quiet residential subdivision would be adversely affected. In New v. State Highway Commission of Mississippi, 297 So. 2d 821 (Miss. 1974), the Court said: See also Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Daniels, 235 Miss. 185, 108 So. 2d 854 (1959); Muse v. Mississippi State Highway Commission, 233 Miss. 694, 103 So. 2d 839 (1958). This Court approved as an item of damages inconvenience due to diminution of access in Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Null, 210 So. 2d 661 (Miss. 1968), and Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Stout, 242 Miss. 208, 134 So. 2d 467 (1961). In Null, the property involved was commercial property and in Stout the property that remained, 3.17 acres, was totally landlocked after the taking. The Court held in Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Hurst, 349 So. 2d 545 (Miss. 1977), that: See also Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Fleming, 242 Miss. 402, 135 So. 2d 821 (1962). In Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Hillman, 195 So. 679 (Miss.), sugg. of err. overruled, 189 Miss. 850, 198 So. 565 (1940), the Court said: The facts of the case sub judice and those in Rasberry v. Calhoun, 230 Miss. 858, 94 So. 2d 612 (1957), are similar. In Rasberry, the lower court gave the exact instruction as in this case, and this Court held the instruction not to be reversible error. In Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Stout, supra, the Commission condemned land for highway purposes and a 3.17-acre plot was left without access. The lower court refused to grant the identical instruction given here, and this Court held that the trial court acted properly and that "[a]ppellee was not entitled to recover anything for inconvenience as a separate item of damage, but it would have been error to give the instruction... . This is especially true ... where some of the remaining land is rendered inaccessible to the owner, ..." [242 Miss. at 220, 134 So. 2d at 471]. The lower court granted appellant's Instruction D-3 and the Commission's Instruction P-5 [See Appendix]. Those instructions properly instructed the jury on damages and, when all the instructions are read and considered together, we are of the opinion that the appellants could not have been prejudiced or confused by Instruction P-2, and that giving the instruction in this case does not constitute reversible error. Did the lower court err in allowing the jury to view the property in the absence of the judge and court reporter? During the trial, the Commission moved the court that the jury be permitted to view the property being taken together with adjacent property. The appellants objected and requested that the view be taken after both sides had completed the evidence. The lower court sustained the objection and granted the request of appellants. After the parties had introduced all their evidence, the court directed that the jury be taken to the scene of the property and permitted to view the same, accompanied by the bailiffs. The trial judge, attorneys for the parties, and court reporter did not go with the jury to the property. They remained in the courthouse working on instructions. No objection was made by the *814 appellants to such procedure. Before the jury left the courtroom to view the property, the court charged it in the following words: When the jury returned from viewing the property, appellant still made no objection to the procedure followed and to the fact that the judge, court reporter and attorneys did not accompany the jury to the property. After the jury verdict was returned, appellants filed a motion for new trial and assigned as a ground that while the jury was viewing the property, the judge, court reporter and attorneys remained at the courthouse; that when the jury was upon the property, an alternate juror stated that "I do not see where they are hurting these good old boys" and "This sure is a pretty farm;" and that as the jury arrived upon the property, two black men and two white women were seen together in a romantic situation. The appellants claimed prejudice on account of these incidents. There are two statutes which deal with a jury view of land. They follow: Effective January 1, 1972, all the eminent domain statutes previous to that time were repealed and an entirely new eminent domain procedure became effective [Chapter 27, Mississippi Code Annotated (1972)]. Section 11-27-19 repealed Section 2770, Mississippi Code Annotated (1942), which provided: Section 13-5-91 appears under Chapter 5 entitled "Juries," Mississippi Code Annotated (1972). It is a general statute with reference to juries' viewing property or the scene of the crime, or where any material fact occurred and the statute has been in existence since prior to 1892. In Gunn v. Mississippi State Highway Commission, 229 So. 2d 828 (Miss. 1969), the case was tried in a special court of eminent domain in Kemper County. The judgment was appealed to the circuit court and a verdict was entered awarding damages in the sum of thirty-seven hundred fifty dollars ($3,750.00). Gunn appealed to this Court, and the question for decision was whether the lower court erred in allowing the jury to view the property in the absence of the judge and court reporter. The landowners' attorney requested the court to have the jury view the property, which was granted. Immediately after the jury viewed the property, the landowners' attorney moved for a mistrial on the ground that neither the judge nor the court reporter went with the jury to view the property during which the highway department engineer answered questions propounded by some of the jurors. This Court held Section 1800, Mississippi Code Annotated (1942) [Mississippi Code Annotated § 13-5-91 (1972)] was the controlling statute with reference to the view of property by the jury, and quoted the section in part. The Court then said: Gunn is distinguished from the case sub judice in that it was tried under the eminent domain statutes in effect prior to January 1, 1971. Under the procedures then in effect, appeal from a special court of eminent domain was to the circuit court where the cause was tried de novo. Therefore, as held in Gunn, Section 1800, Mississippi Code Annotated (1942), [Mississippi Code Annotated § 13-5-91 (1972)], was controlling on view of property and that statute required the organized court, consisting of the judge, jury, clerk, sheriff and deputy sheriffs to *816 accompany the jury to the scene. This section was not complied with by the lower court in Gunn, and timely objections were made. Prejudice to the landowner Gunn was clearly shown. Under the present eminent domain statutes, the appeal from a judgment in an eminent domain court is directly to the Mississippi Supreme Court. There is no de novo trial in circuit court as in Gunn. Therefore, the applicable statute for the jury to view the premises is Section 11-27-19.[1] The alternate juror who made two remarks at the scene of the property did not participate in the deliberation of the jury. We cannot see how those remarks and the incident involving mixed couples could have prejudiced the jury. No suggestion has been made to what the trial judge could have done had he been present, or what, if anything, the appellants would have requested him to do. Regardless of the contentions and argument of appellants, their request for a jury view of the property at the conclusion of the evidence was granted, the trial judge charged the jury as to its conduct on the view and no objection was made to that procedure. After return of the verdict, for the first time appellants objected in a motion for new trial. We are of the opinion that appellants' actions constituted a waiver of that point. There being no reversible errors in the trial below, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed. AFFIRMED. PATTERSON, C.J., SUGG and WALKER, P.JJ., and BROOM and PRATHER, JJ., concur. DAN M. LEE, HAWKINS and BOWLING, JJ., dissent. The Court instructs the Jury that the measure of damages in an eminent domain proceeding is the difference in the value of the whole tract of property immediately before and immediately after the taking of the condemned property. In arriving at such value, you should award the defendants the amount of damages which has been proven to you by a preponderance of the evidence in this cause. The Court instructs the Jury that when a part of a larger tract of land is taken for public use, the owner should be awarded the difference between the fair market value of the whole tract immediately before the taking, and the fair market value of that remaining, without considering general benefits or injuries resulting from the use to which the land taken is to be put, that are shared by the general public. DAN M. LEE, Justice, dissenting: Being unable to agree with the conclusions reached by the majority, I, therefore, respectfully dissent. Three errors were committed in the trial below, the combined effect of which requires reversal of this case. The first error involves the exclusion of certain photographs of two houses in Patrick Subdivision which subdivision was used by all three witnesses for the highway commission as comparable property in determining an estimate of compensation. The photographs were properly authenticated but were denied admission solely on the grounds of relevancy. The photographs were relevant and admissible as rebuttal evidence to show the dissimilarities of the property compared so that the jury could decide whether or not to accept or reject the valuation of the property arrived at by *817 the commission's experts. The relevancy of this evidence was compounded by the fact that the Spring Valley Subdivision was subject to certain restrictive covenants while Patrick Subdivision was not. The age-old rule found in 31 C.J.S. Evidence section 3 (1964) defines "Rebutting evidence" as follows: As a general rule, evidence may be introduced to impeach or contradict a skilled or expert witness or to lessen the weight of his expert opinion even after such witness has been excused by agreement of counsel and he has retired. Contradiction or impeachment may be shown by the use of exhibits, a showing that the expert is interested or biased, that others have, at a prior time, refused to accept the opinion expressed, or that he made inconsistent statements at another time, provided a proper foundation has been laid and the purpose for which the evidence is offered is made clear to the court. 32 C.J.S. Evidence § 571 (1964). 32 C.J.S. Evidence section 571 further provides: Textbooks or treatises relied on by an expert witness may be used as a basis for impeaching on cross-examination. Harris v. Pounds, 185 Miss. 688, 187 So. 891 (1939), and 32 C.J.S. Evidence § 574(1) (1964). In Madden v. Pittman, 242 So. 2d 691 (Miss. 1970), which involved several consolidated actions stemming from an automobile collision, complaint was made of the admission of a photograph of one of the vehicles in a storage yard. Finding no error, this Court stated: The trial judge in the case sub judice concluded that because the photographs depicted houses while the land sought to be condemned was unimproved although the same had been platted into lots for home construction and restrictive covenants filed, the photographs were irrelevant. The photographs were relevant as rebuttal evidence and therefore admissible under the facts and circumstances of this case. This was error that had the effect of preventing the appellants from attacking the basis of appellee's expert witnesses' credibility as to compensation. The next assignment of error is that the highway commission was granted the following instruction The instruction is highly confusing and should not have been given for the following reasons. In Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Hillman, 189 Miss. 850, 198 So. 565 (1940), this Court stated: See also Mississippi State Highway Comm'n v. Treas, 197 Miss. 670, 20 So. 2d 475 (1945); Rasberry v. Calhoun County, Mississippi, 230 Miss. 858, 94 So. 2d 612 (1957); and Mississippi State Highway Comm. v. Stout, 242 Miss. 208, 134 So. 2d 467 (1961), overruled on other grounds at 390 So. 2d 284. In Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Crooks, 282 So. 2d 232 (Miss. 1973), this Court reiterated the before and after rule and what it encompasses: Because the before and after rule swallows and absorbs all the damages, the ultimate measure of damages and instructions to the jury should not comment upon any particular element of damages. Mississippi State Highway Comm'n. v. Blackwell, 350 So. 2d 1325 (Miss. 1977). In Rasberry v. Calhoun County, Mississippi, 230 Miss. 858, 94 So. 2d 612 (1957), this Court approved the following instruction: The Court relied upon State Highway Commission v. Treas, supra, as authority for approval of the instruction; however, the instruction cannot be found in that opinion nor does it even appear that such an instruction was at issue on appeal. See Mississippi State Highway Comm'n v. Stout, supra, 242 Miss. at 221, 134 So. 2d 467. Subsequently, in Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Stout, 242 Miss. 208, 134 So. 2d 467 (1961), this Court upheld the refusal of the same instruction approved in Rasberry. The Court stated: See also Carney v. Mississippi State Highway Commission, 233 Miss. 598, 103 So. 2d 413 (1958), holding the following instruction error: The authorities are clear that a landowner may recover all special damages that may result to his remaining land from the public use to which the part taken is to be put. These special damages should be explored in the fields of testimony and argument; however, the instructions to the jury should not comment on any particular element of damages. The final error involves the viewing of the condemned property in the absence of the judge and court reporter. The court, after both sides had introduced all their evidence, directed that the jury be taken to the scene of the property for a view of the premises, accompanied by the bailiff. Before the jury left, the court charged it in the following words: The trial judge, attorneys and court reporter remained at the courthouse working on instructions while the jury left to view the premises. Appellant contends this action was error. This Court has passed upon the question of the necessity of the presence of the court reporter and the judge during a viewing of the property by the jury. Gunn v. Mississippi State Highway Comm'n., 229 So. 2d 828 (Miss. 1969). In Gunn, the landowners' attorney moved the court to have the jury view the premises, which motion was granted. Immediately after the jury viewed the property, the landowners' attorney moved for a mistrial on the ground that neither the judge nor the court reporter went with the jury to view the property during which time the highway department engineer answered some questions propounded by some of the jurors. In reversing the case, this Court said: Viewing the property is spelled out in the following sections. Mississippi Code Annotated section 13-5-91 (1972) provides as follows: Mississippi Code Annotated section 11-27-19 (1972) also provides: Furthermore, this Court has passed on this precise question in Gunn, supra. The majority seeks to distinguish Gunn on the ground that our eminent domain statutes have been revamped following Gunn. I respectfully suggest that Gunn is on all fours with the facts in this case and cannot be distinguished therefrom, and was reversed and remanded solely due to the failure of the judge and court reporter to accompany the jury when it viewed the property. *822 The majority's interpretation of section 11-27-19 is indeed strained when said section provides that the jury may, in the sound discretion of the judge, go to the premises, under the charge of the court as to conduct, conversation, and actions as may be proper in the premises. The court cannot be in charge of the conduct, the conversations, and the actions if the judge and the court reporter are several miles away. Furthermore, the majority opinion overlooks section 9-13-31 (1972) which was heavily relied upon for reversal in Gunn. It provides: This statute contemplates that the entire proceedings, including a view of the premises, must be conducted with the court reporter present. Gunn, supra. Therefore, even if the appellant waived the attendance of the judge and attorneys to view the premises which he did not, the judge required that the court reporter remain behind to go over jury instructions. The failure of the court reporter to attend the view of the premises pursuant to Gunn is reversible error. Perhaps, in our zeal to justify a given result we overlook some basics of our three-separate-branch form of government. We interpret statutes passed by our legislature, not rewrite them nor ignore them. The majority opinion has the effect of telling the trial judges of this state to ignore two plain and unambiguous statutes. Moreover, the trial judge in his charge to the jury prior to its viewing the premises, authorized the project engineer, a witness for appellee, to answer questions propounded by the jury as to the boundaries of the property. This is precisely what Gunn condemned. In my opinion, this alone is sufficient reason to reverse this case. However, when this error is considered in the light of the other two errors previously discussed, a new trial should be granted. BOWLING and HAWKINS, JJ., join in this dissent. HAWKINS, Justice, dissenting: I join in the dissent of Justice Dan Lee, with an additional observation on the fact that the trial judge was not in attendance when the jury viewed the premises. Of course, error in trial proceedings can be waived by trial counsel. In this case we do not have simple error, however, but rather a conscious abandonment by the trial judge of an affirmative judicial duty in the conduct of trial proceedings. I would ask, how could the trial judge know whether or not prejudicial error occurred when the jury inspected the premises since he was not there to observe? How could he exercise judicial discretion and rule thereon? Is it really fair to place the entire burden for this failure on the part of the trial judge on the shoulders of trial counsel who must practice in his court? As an appellate court, insofar as we are able to do so, we have an obligation by our decisions to require judicial proficiency in trial proceedings. Do we best insure the attainment of this objective when we decide that a trial judge is free to do as he pleases so long as there is no objection by trial counsel? Where will we draw the line between error and license, or error and dereliction? It is my respectful view we should draw the line in this case and reverse. DAN M. LEE, J., joins this dissent. [1] Trial of the case sub judice consumed three (3) days. Trial judges are reminded and cautioned that, if they and court reporters are not present when a jury views premises, even though specifically charged, something may occur, which, in the absence of the trial judge, might require reversal.