Court Opinion

ID: 7817208
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-07 17:40:45.018724+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:30:29.649344
License: Public Domain

Conley Byrd, Justice, dissenting. In Arkansas State Highway Commn. v. Johns, 236 Ark. 585, 367 S. W. 2d 436 (1963), we said: “Two of the witnesses, Bob Geliy and Joe Snelly, were real estate dealers in Crawford county. After having first stated that they were familiar with land values in the vicinity of the Johns property and that they had inspected this property, both thpse witnesses expressed their opinion as to the fair market value of the appellees ’ property before and after the taking. The appellant made an unsuccessful attempt to have this testimony 'stricken, on the ground that neither witness had stated the facts and reasons forming the basis for his opinion. In insisting that the testimony should have been excluded the appellant cites cases such as Ark. State Highway Commn. v. Byars, 221 Ark. 845, 256 S. W. 2d 738, holding that the opinion of an expert witness is not substantial evidence when the witness fails to give a fair or reasonable basis for his conclusions. We think counsel have misconstrued the intent of our cases. It is true that a non-expert witness, such as a layman testifying about a testator’s mental capacity, must state the facts upon which his opinion is based before giving that opinion. Walsh v. Fairhead, 215 Ark. 218, 219 S. W. 2d 941. But there is no similar condition to the admissibility of an expert’s opinion. An expert witness, after having established his qualifications and his familiarity with the subject of the inquiry, is ordinarily in a position to state his opinion. For instance, a physician might testify that he had examined a certain patient and found him to be afflicted with malaria. That testimony would unquestionably be admissible. Yet if this physician, on cross-examination, were forced to admit that he had found no recognized symptom of malaria and had based his conclusion solely 'upon the" fact that the patient had been bitten by a mosquito, then, under the rule in the Byars case, the witness’s opinion would no longer constitute substantial evidence. It was incumbent upon counsel for the appellant to support their motion to strike by showing that the landowners ’ expert witnesses had no reasonable basis for their opinions. Counsel actually made no effort in that direction, the motion to strike Snelly’s testimony having been made without any cross-examination at all. Thus there was a complete failure to overcome the prima facie admissibility of the testimonv that was challenged. ’ ’ The property owners here followed the same procedure set out in the Johns case by establishing the qualifications of their witnesses and then having them testify to the before and after fair market values of their lands. Appellant, the City of Fort Smith, made no effort to show that the witnesses had no basis for their testimony. On appeal, appellant has argued that there is no evidence of any severance damages, but its arguments overlook the effect of the proof of damages by giving the fair market values of the total lands before and after the taking of the easement. I have found no case overruling the Johns case, which incidentally was tried in the same county and before the same judge involved in the case at bar. With the Johns case as my authority, I, too, would have tried this lawsuit in the same manner as did the trial court and lawyers. Furthermore, I think that a basis for the severance damages of the appellees is shown. One of the benefits of owning property is the right to exclude others, and consequently the loss of this right affects the market value of the lands. The appellees were cattle farmers, and it makes no difference in this situation whether they were dairy or beef cattle farmers, for in each instance the pounds of milk produced each day or the pounds of beef produced each day has a direct relation to the grass consumed by the cows. Consequently, every entry on the premises by persons to whom the cows are not acclimated will cause a disturbance which cuts down 'on the amount of grass consumed by the cows. Appellant has placed air blow boxes (concrete boxes) on the lands of both appellees. The boxes, being of a mechanical nature, obviously will require some type of maintenance. How many trips will result from maintenance and how many trips will result from unauthorized persons as a result of a pecan tree or a squirrel that the authorized personnel told' somebody about is a matter of speculation, but it is a common problem with cattle farmers. Those little concrete boxes would stick out like a sore thumb to a prospective purchaser of the lands. While this argument may sound like “nit picking” to some, I have only to remind many business men that they prefer that their production lines be not interrupted by a candidate for public office. It gets down to the same reason: the interruption affects the volume of production. For these reasons, I dissent.