Opinion ID: 2571591
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Testimony Regarding Itemized Damages

Text: Regarding Wooten's testimony, the Sextons note that K.S.A. 26-513(d) provides that the nonexclusive factors listed in the statute are not to be considered as separate items of damages, but are to be considered only as they affect the total compensation and damage. During trial, the City's attorney asked Wooten on cross-examination whether he assigned $100,000 in damages for lack of access. Before Wooten responded to the question, the Sextons' attorney objected and moved for a mistrial, arguing that this violated court orders. The trial court denied the motion for a mistrial and permitted the City to ask Wooten only if he had assigned a dollar amount for the lack of access factor, not the specific dollar amount itself. The court found that the actual dollar amount would be irrelevant, confusing to the jury, and contrary to the law. In addition, the trial court indicated that the jury would be instructed that itemization was not the way to calculate an eminent domain award. When Wooten was then asked if he assigned a dollar amount to that factor, he answered in the affirmative. The City also points out that Wooten first mentioned the $100,000 figure during direct examination when testifying about his estimate of damages. Before he could explain himself fully, however, the Sextons' attorney stopped him. In looking at the trial transcript, it appears that the court permitted counsel to question Wooten regarding his method of valuation, which involved Wooten's assigning values to various damage factors. The specific values assigned to each factor, however, were not allowed into evidence. The City's purpose for this line of questioning was to discredit Wooten's method of valuation. The brief mention of $100,000 in partial damages does not appear to have caused prejudice to the Sextons. Besides, the jury was instructed that the statutory factors are not to be considered by you as separate items of damage, but are to be considered only as they affect the fair market value of the property. We presume that the jury followed the trial court's jury instructions. McConwell v. FMG of Kansas City, Inc., 18 Kan.App.2d 839, 852, 861 P.2d 830, rev. denied 254 Kan. 1007 (1994). The Sextons have not shown they are entitled to relief.