Title: BRINK ET UX v. Multnomah County
Citation: 224 Or. 507, 356 P.2d 536
Docket Number: N/A
State: Oregon
Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court
Date: November 9, 1960

Affirmed November 9, 1960.
*508 Leo Levenson, Portland, argued the cause and submitted briefs for appellants.
Julian Herndon, Jr., Deputy District Attorney, Portland, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Charles E. Raymond, District Attorney, Portland.
Before McALLISTER, Chief Justice, WARNER, SLOAN, O'CONNELL and HOWELL, Justices.
AFFIRMED.
O'CONNELL, J.
The defendant county initiated a condemnation proceeding to acquire a portion of plaintiffs' land for the purpose of relocating and widening a county road. The Board of County Commissioners fixed the damages for the taking at $5,725. Plaintiffs appealed to the Circuit Court for Multnomah County and obtained a verdict and judgment for $8,000, together with interest. Plaintiffs appeal from that judgment, assigning as error the exclusion of certain evidence which they sought to elicit from Elmer Kolberg, a witness called on their behalf.
When Kolberg was called as a witness, defendant's counsel requested to be heard in chambers concerning *509 the character of the testimony which plaintiffs proposed to elicit from the witness. In the colloquy in chambers which followed, defendant's counsel stated that Kolberg had been "previously employed for compensation by Multnomah county here to observe this property in question and to act as a consultant and advisor to me as Deputy District Attorney representing Multnomah County and in that respect has communicated with me in regard to certain data relative to this problem."
Counsel's objection to the use of Kolberg as a witness was stated as follows:
It will be noted that, at this point in the trial, the objection to the witness testifying was not based upon the assertion of the attorney-client privilege, but rather on the ground that Kolberg was an expert witness and that as such he could not be required to testify by one who had not employed him in that capacity. The court, in overruling defendant's objection, gave the following reason:
It is not clear from the foregoing explanation of his ruling whether the trial judge proposed to exclude the testimony concerning the appraisal on the ground of privilege or on the ground asserted by defendant's counsel.
When Kolberg took the stand he testified that he had made an examination of the subject property at the request of Multnomah County. Objection was then made by defendant's counsel to any testimony by the witness "unless there is a showing that this witness has ever been employed by the owner in this case." Here again the objection was not founded upon the assertion of the privilege of confidential communication between *511 lawyer and client, but upon the ground that one who has not employed an expert witness cannot require him to testify as to those matters within his expertise. The objection was overruled. Thereupon Kolberg continued to testify, stating his qualifications as an expert and describing the subject property. The following testimony was then given:
1. It is apparent from an examination of the foregoing testimony that there was not a common understanding upon the part of court and counsel as to the basis for excluding Kolberg's testimony. Defendant's counsel seemed to have rested his objection on the ground that an expert witness cannot be required to testify on matters within his expertise by one who has not employed him for that purpose. Both the witness and defendant's counsel referred to the witness' "privilege" but the character of the privilege relied upon was not revealed. The witness gave as his reason the "confidential" character of the information he was asked to divulge. He may have assumed, mistakenly, that the law recognizes a privilege of confidential communications between an appraiser and his client; or he may have inartfully asserted the privilege arising out of the attorney-client relationship which is extended to communications from the client's agent to the attorney under proper circumstances.
The court's rulings do not disclose its basis for assuming that the witness had the privilege of declining *515 to divulge the information with respect to the appraisal.
Although there was no clear statement of the basis for recognizing the witness' right to withhold his knowledge of the appraisal, the final ruling made by the court in sustaining the objection to the question calling for an opinion on damages was adequately explained. Counsel was informed that the witness' opinion with respect to damages was not admissible. Apparently the court had in mind the rule recognized in our cases that a witness may not testify directly as to the amount of damages. Hanns v. Friedly, 181 Or 631, 184 P2d 855 (1947); Coos Bay Logging Co. v. Barclay, 159 Or 272, 79 P2d 672 (1938); Smith v. Pallay et al., 130 Or 282, 279 P 279 (1929); Daniels v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 88 Or 421, 171 P 1178 (1918); Pacific Ry. &amp; Nav. Co. v. Elmore Packing Co., 60 Or 534, 120 P 389, Ann Cas 1914A 371 (1912); Pacific Livestock Co. v. Murray, 45 Or 103, 76 P 1079 (1904). The court offered to explain to counsel "the proper method of approach toward the adducing of testimony in this matter." From this, it would appear that the court did not completely foreclose the question of the admissibility of Kolberg's testimony if properly presented. Plaintiff made no objection to this ruling, nor did he make any offer or proof which would obviate the objection stated in the court's ruling. Plaintiff contends that since the court, at this point, had already expressed its view that Kolberg need not testify on plaintiffs' behalf, any further effort on plaintiffs' part to elicit testimony from the witness would have been futile. If that were the case, it is difficult to understand why the court would offer to adjourn to chambers and explain the proper method of "adducing the testimony in this matter." Kolberg had testified *516 that he had not made an appraisal of the property. His statement that he had not made a "before and after appraisal" indicates, without further explanation, that he was not competent to testify in the present case (applying the Oregon view that a witness may testify as to the value of property before and after the injury or taking but not directly as to the resultant damages). It is fair to assume that this was the thought behind the court's ruling.
2. When the plaintiff made no effort to show that Kolberg could testify as to the value of the property before and after the taking, the court apparently assumed that the witness had no information which would be admissible in evidence. Without an offer of proof to show that Kolberg had admissible evidence to offer, the trial court was entitled to assume that plaintiffs had concluded that the witness had nothing which could be admitted into evidence and that for that reason they had decided to pursue the matter no further. Under these circumstances the trial court could treat as irrelevant the question of Kolberg's competency.
3-5. There was another basis for justifying the exclusion of Kolberg's testimony. Defendant's counsel stated to the trial court that Kolberg had been employed by the defendant "to observe this property in question and to act as a consultant and adviser to me as Deputy District Attorney representing Multnomah County and in that respect has communicated with me in regard to certain data relative to this problem." A communication made under the circumstances described by defendant's counsel would fall within the privilege extended to a client for communications with his lawyer. A communication "by any form of agency employed or set in motion by the client is within the *517 privilege." 8 Wigmore, Evidence § 2317, p 616 (3d ed 1940); City and County of San Francisco v. Superior Court, 37 Cal2d 227, 231 P2d 26, 31, 25 ALR2d 1418 (1951). The fact that the District Attorney and his staff are, in effect, "house counsel" for the county does not preclude the assertion of the privilege. Georgia-Pacific Plywood Co. v. United States Ply. Corp., 18 FRD 463, 464 (D.C.S.D. NY 1956); United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 89 F Supp 357, 360 (D.C. Mass 1950). But the privilege is not available to the client if the document which is claimed to be the privileged communication was prepared by the client's agent in the regular course of business without reference to an existing or threatened lawsuit. Schmitt v. Emery, 211 Minn 547, 2 NW2d 413, 139 ALR 1242 (1942); Robertson v. Commonwealth, 181 Va 520, 25 SE2d 352, 146 ALR 966 (1943); McCormick, Evidence § 100, pp 204-205 (1954). Plaintiffs contend that the report sought to be shown in the case at bar was made under such circumstances. The record indicates that the contrary is true. The property was first appraised by a board of viewers pursuant to ORS 368.480. The damages were fixed by the viewers at $5,725, which value was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with this appraisal and filed their appeal to the Circuit Court. It seems evident that Kolberg's services were not needed until the plaintiffs indicated that they would not accept the board's appraisal. We have, then, an existing or threatened lawsuit at the time Kolberg's report was made to defendant or to its counsel, and the report was made for use in connection with the litigation. As we have said, this was sufficient to bring the report within the privilege. The privilege could be asserted by defendant's counsel. Schmitt v. Emery, supra; In Re *518 Klemann, 132 Ohio St 187, 5 NE2d 492, 108 ALR 505 (1936); City and County of San Francisco v. Superior Court, supra.
Plaintiffs cannot seriously contend that they were not apprised of the fact that a privilege was being asserted. The statement made by defendant's counsel in chambers referring to the fact that the witness was employed to act as his "adviser" and "in that respect has communicated with me," coupled with the subsequent objection on the ground that "the witness is claiming privileges" was in itself sufficient to apprise plaintiffs that some kind of a privilege based upon a communication between witness and defendant or its counsel was claimed. The witness' refusal to testify on the ground that his report was "confidential information," although possibly grounded on the misconception that the privilege arose out of the appraiser-client relation, was at least equivocal and was, therefore, additional notice to plaintiffs of a claim of some kind of privilege. If plaintiffs felt that the assertion of privilege was not sufficiently definite, they should have demanded that defendant explain its stand more specifically.
It is possible that plaintiffs' demand for the information contained in its report could have been resisted by defendant's counsel on the ground that it was a part of his "work-product" arising out of his preparation for trial. Hickman v. Taylor, 329 US 495, 67 SC 385, 91 L Ed 451 (1947), instructive opinion below reported in 153 F2d 212, 223 (3d Cir 1945); Sparks Co. v. Huber Baking Co., 10 Terry (Del Super) 267, 114 A2d 657 (1955); McCormick, Evidence § 100 (1954). However, since our conclusion can be rested upon the grounds already discussed, we deem it unnecessary to determine *519 whether the work-product rule is applicable to the present case.
The plaintiffs contend that they were denied a fair and impartial trial because they were prevented from obtaining the testimony of a witness who could testify as to the value of the property taken from them by the defendant. In urging us to grant a new trial, plaintiffs direct our attention to the statement made by Justice BRAND in State v. Cahill, 208 Or 538, 582, 293 P2d 169, 298 P2d 214 (1956), cert. den., 352 US 895, 77 SC 132, 1 L Ed2d 87 (1956), that "[a] trial is no longer a game of wits; it is a search for truth and justice." Still, our judicial system is based upon adversary proceedings, and plaintiffs had the opportunity to, and undoubtedly did, present their own version of the value of the property through the testimony of their own appraisers. Plaintiffs wanted more. Despite the fact that Kolberg had informed plaintiffs and the court that he had not made an appraisal sufficient to warrant further testimony by him, still plaintiffs wanted to build their own case by forcing defendant's agent, Kolberg, to testify that he had assessed the property at a figure greater than the value for which defendant contends, and by creating an inference unfavorable to defendant by calling attention to its failure to call Kolberg after employing him to examine the property. Other courts have had occasion to reflect upon the practice of attempting to prove one's case by forcing the testimony of the expert retained by the opposing party. It has been said that one litigant should not be permitted to "make use of his opponent's preparation of his case," and that to do so "would penalize the diligent and place a premium on laziness." McCarthy v. Palmer, 29 F Supp 585, 586 (D.C.E.D. NY 1939), affirmed 113 F2d 721 (1940). See *520 also, Lewis v. United Air Lines Transport Corporation, 32 F Supp 21, 23 (D.C.W.D. Pa 1940).
For the foregoing reasons we do not believe that the Court's action in excluding the testimony deprived plaintiffs of a fair trial. There was no error.
The judgment is affirmed.