Court Opinion

ID: 9760290
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:46:33.589351+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:10.440866
License: Public Domain

On Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing.
In our original opinion we expressed doubt as to our ruling that the evidence was sufficient on the issue of damages. Thus encouraged Southwestern Bell has filed a forceful motion for rehearing.
The doubt which we previously entertained about this question is completely dispelled by the opinion of Chief Justice Phillips in the case of Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. Ellis, 111 Tex. 15, 224 S.W. 471, from which we quote:
“The witness Quinn, for instance, was asked to state his judgment as 'to the damage to the pasture.’ An objection that the question called for the conclusion of the witness upon a matter exclusively for the jury and for testimony not the proper basis for the correct measure of damages, was overruled. The question was repeated, but in this form, ‘What would be the damage, the difference between the value of the pasture before the fire and after the fire?’ The answer of the witness, shown to have been an experienced cattleman and familiar with the pasture, was this: ‘If you are going to rent a pasture for stock, and one had been burned and one was not burned, I would make fifty cents an acre difference. Yes, sir, that would be a fair difference in the value.’ While so much of the question as asked for a statement of the witness’ opinion as to ‘the damage’ was objectionable, as a part of the same question he was asked to state his opinion as to ‘the difference between the value’ of the pasture before and after the fire; and his answer gave an amount which he expressly stated as ‘the fair difference in the value.’
“The measure of damages was the difference in the value of the land because of the injury. The value of property is a matter of opinion. A witness may give his opinion on the question. No objection was made that the witness here was not qualified by knowledge to give an opinion. His testimony shows that it related to value. It might have been preferable to have had him state his opinion as to^ the value of the pasture land before the fire and its value afterward, instead of stating the difference between the value before and after; but his answer had the same effect. In substance, it amounted to the same thing, and a court should look to the substance. We will not reverse a judgment upon such grounds. The testimony, and that of the other witnesses as well, under any fair interpretation had reference only to the difference in the value of the land occasioned by the defendant’s wrongful act. That was the inquiry before the jury.”
The motion is overruled.
Motion overruled.