Opinion ID: 3052196
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Severance Damages in Power Line Condemnation

Text: Proceedings [1] When the government condemns part of a parcel from an owner, it is liable not only for the part taken but also for v. Daley, 253 Cal. Rptr. 144, 150-53 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988), disapproved of on other grounds by L.A. County M.T.A. v. Cont’l Dev. Corp., 941 P.2d 809 (Cal. 1997). 7284 UNITED STATES v. CAMPION the diminution of value in the remainder resulting from the severance. See United States v. 4.0 Acres of Land, 175 F.3d 1133, 1139 (9th Cir. 1999). The excluded evidence bears on the effect of the power lines on market value outside of the boundaries of the easement. Campion, as the landowner in this case, bears the burden of proving his entitlement to these “severance damages.” United States ex rel. Tenn. Valley Auth. v. Powelson, 319 U.S. 266, 273 (1943). As the proponent of Sage’s expert testimony, Campion also has the burden to establish its admissibility. Lust v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 89 F.3d 594, 598 (9th Cir. 1996). [2] Wholly apart from evidence of actual health risks, evidence of public perceptions of health risks—even irrational public perceptions—may properly establish an impact on market value. “[I]f fear of a hazard would affect the price a knowledgeable and prudent buyer would pay to a similarly well-informed seller, diminution in value caused by the fear may be recoverable as part of just compensation.” United States v. 760.807 Acres of Land, 731 F.2d 1443, 1447 (9th Cir. 1984) (citations omitted). A party may therefore introduce evidence to show how public fears of EMFs, even if they are unreasonable, adversely affect value. See id.; San Diego Gas & Elec. Co., 253 Cal. Rptr. at 150-53 (gathering cases). Thus, the admissibility of Campion’s EMF evidence hinges on this latter factor—the extent to which EMFs bear on public perceptions in the marketplace.