Opinion ID: 1788981
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Receipt of Evidence with Respect to Cost of Installing Overhead Conveyor.

Text: As a result of the taking of the .44 acres, Ken-Crete was deprived of the use of this land on which to store piles of sand and gravel used in the manufacture of its concrete blocks. After the taking, Ken-Crete leased some land to the west owned by a railroad company adjoining Ken-Crete's premises, and now its supply of sand and gravel is stored on this leased land. The aggregate is now brought by trucks and dumped there. The concrete-block manufacturing plant is located close to the east boundary of Ken-Crete's property, and other buildings occupy the south portion of its remaining premises, so Ken-Crete had no available land abutting on the highway available for storing sand and gravel, which necessitated the leasing of the railroad premises for such purpose. Before the taking, a loader or elevator carried the sand and gravel up to the hopper where it would be loaded into the machines which manufactured the blocks. One employee operated both the loader and the automatic machinery used in manufacturing the blocks. After the taking, the sand and gravel had to be transported to the manufacturing plant, a distance of approximately 240 feet from where it was stored on the leased land. Three expert witnesses, Kerr, Williams, and Wolf, all with long experience with concrete-block manufacturing machines, were permitted to testify, over the objection of the condemnors, that the most-economical way of transporting this sand and gravel from the stockpiles on the leased land to the block-manufacturing plant would be by installing an overhead conveyor system. The estimated cost of the overhead conveyor as testified to by the witness, Kerr, was $43,900. Ken-Crete called two experienced realtors, Bear and Pfennig, to testify to the value of its premises before and after the taking. Bear, in his testimony, stated, that he had consulted with Kerr, Williams, and Wolf in familiarizing himself with the machinery involved and that in his judgment a well-informed buyer would consult with such experts before making a decision regarding the property. Pfennig's testimony made no reference to that of Kerr, Williams, and Wolf. The condemnors contend it was prejudicial error to admit the testimony of Kerr, Williams, and Wolf with respect to the advisability of installing the overhead conveyor and the cost of such installation. Their principal argument in support of this contention is that such conveyor would constitute a capital improvement for which recovery may not be had under sec. 32.09 (6), Stats. [1] Under sec. 32.09 (6), Stats., the measure of damages in a condemnation proceeding where there is a severance is the difference between the fair market value of the whole property immediately before the taking and the fair market value of the remainder immediately thereafter. By use of the phrase and without restriction because of enumeration found in sec. 32.09 (6), it seems reasonable to conclude that the legislature intended that every element which affects fair market value should be considered. This is in accord with the great weight of authority. See 4 Nichols, Eminent Domain (3d ed. 1962), p. 3 et seq., sec. 12.1, where the author states (p. 4) that, All elements of value which are inherent in the property merit consideration in the valuation process. The author also states that evidence is admissible that the remainder area is no longer capable of use for a particular purpose or that its purpose or that its facility therefor has been impaired. See 4 Nichols, supra, sec. 14.243, and cases cited at note 4, page 580. These principles were approved by this court in Carazalla v. State (1955), 269 Wis. 593, 70 N. W. (2d) 208, 71 N. W. (2d) 276 (on rehearing), where the court stated (p. 608b): . . . in case of a partial taking of land by eminent domain any damages to the remaining land, which results from the use to which the parcel taken is to be devoted, is a proper item to be included in determining the value of the owner's remaining land after the taking. (Emphasis supplied.) It is conceded that the highest and best use to which Ken-Crete's premises might be devoted at time of taking was a concrete-block manufacturing plant. The testimony with respect to the advisability and cost of installing the overhead conveyor was not offered by Ken-Crete to establish a separate item of damages, but only as an element to be considered in arriving at the value of the remainder of its property after the taking. The underlying theory is that a prospective purchaser would pay $43,900 less for the premises after the taking than before, if he would have to expend that amount to provide a facility to enable the block-manufacturing plant to continue to operate at the same capacity as before the taking. Under this theory, as borne out by the testimony of Ken-Crete's expert witnesses, the expenditure of this $43,900 would not cause the value of the remaining premises to exceed the value of the whole premises as they existed before the taking. The jury had the right to accept the testimony which substantiated this theory. In an analogous situation involving agricultural property, which, because of a partial taking, would require additional fencing in order for the remaining property to be used thereafter in the same fashion, this court, in Nowaczyk v. Marathon County (1931), 205 Wis. 536, 238 N. W. 383, held that the cost of additional fencing was a proper element to be considered in determining the after value of the remaining property. In Nowaczyk, supra, the court made the following pertinent statements (p. 541): `. . . the necessity of fences must be considered in its tendency to minimize the value of the farm, rather than as an independent and separately itemized element of damages. The question is not what the particular fence desired by appellees at this time may cost, but rather the underlying inquiry is whether the farm as a whole, in view of the purposes for which it is adapted, will be minimized in value because extra fencing may be required and such fence might need to be repaired, maintained, and replaced.' This is doubtless a correct statement, and being true we are unable to see why the estimated cost of construction, maintenance, and replacement may not be shown, as they must be considered in estimating the diminution in value caused by the extra fences. [2] Tested by the foregoing principles the court is constrained to hold that the anticipated cost of installing the conveyor system was an element that the jury could properly consider in determining the value of the remaining property after taking. Therefore, the trial court properly overruled the condemnors' objections to such testimony. The condemnors point to other evidence which they contend disclosed a far less expensive way of getting the sand and gravel delivered into the block-manufacturing plant than installing an overhead conveyor. This argument has to do with the weight to be accorded the testimony relating to the conveyor, not its admissibility.