Court Opinion

ID: 9549105
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:13:24.464941+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:19:50.767944
License: Public Domain

JACKSON, Vice Chief Justice
(dissenting).
The sole issue presented for reversal of the trial court by plaintiff, Oklahoma Turnpike Authority, is as follows:
“An excessive verdict was rendered as a result of prejudicial and inflammatory remarks by the opposing counsel in his closing argument to the jury.”
Defendant’s argument, complained of, is recited as follows:
“Now I wonder if it’s fair to have the Turnpike go out there and drive the stobs and tell you where they’re going to take your land and then send one of their employees out there who is working for them $600.00 a month on a salary and step it off and say, this is what we’re going to pay you. And if you don’t take it, we’ll sue you. And then require you to come in and hire a lawyer and pay a $100.00 witness fee for a man to come down here and all the ' time it’s, put you to the expense, why didn’t they offer her or why didn’t he make it big enough to begin with. Anybody in the world knows that they could have taken this property here and paid them for it”.
“Now he says, further when this goes through, though, he says somebody has to be hurt, for progresses sake. But in 1932 I argued a case before the Supreme Court of the U. S., to win it and *519take away the last toll bridge in the State of Oklahoma and we said then that toll roads were bad, they’re not good for the people of Oklahoma, we can’t have them. Now whether a toll road is progress or not, I don’t know. I don’t know that we have to have them, that a toll road is progress, but he says this is progress, you can determine whether it is or not, you can’t get on it unless you pay .to get on and get off, you pay ten cents a gallon in taxes and pay two more to get on there, you don’t get anything off your tax money to go over it. Now let’s be fair, he says somebody needs to be hurt and he is sorry that it’s these people here. Ladies and gentlemen, if there has been anybody in this courtroom today who shouldn’t be hurt, it’s Roy Daniels and his wife. I have never met or seen a finer couple in my life, he was honest, sincere, he’s lived there through this turmoil and noise, his wife has, with his children and he said he had five, he has done everything in the world, he’s not a vicious man, he didn’t come in here and testify viciously, in my opinion he’s one of the best men I ever knew and he doesn’t have hardly a fair chance against an organization as big as the Turnpike Authority. It may be true he couldn’t bring in as many witnesses as they could, tie’s having to pay attorneys fees because they offered him what? $2,200.00”.
“Let’s see, they want to be fair, they don’t want to hurt anybody. Mr. Remington was willing to give them $400.00 and I don’t think the Turnpike Authority ought to have the power to go out and take it and then one of their employees have the power to go out and tell you just what you’re going to get and no more, but that’s what Mr. Remington did. You take that or go hire yourself a lawyer and hire yourself a lot of high powered witnesses and come in here and fight it and go through the turmoil of a lawsuit to'know whether you’re going to be home in the morning or whether you’re going to have any home or whether they’re going to give you enough to move you”.
A part of defendants’ quoted argument was injected into the case by defendants’ own cross examination of one of plaintiffs witnesses, Mr. Remington, as follows r
“Q. As Chief-Right-of-Way Appraiser, is it your duty after the engineers have set off the stakes as to what land it is necessary to take, it is your duty to go to the land owner and tell him how much you will give him?
“A. No, I don’t negotiate the deal.
“Q. Do you fix the values?
“A. I appraise the place, yes sir.
“Q. How much are you paid per month ?
“A. $600.00.”
Following defendants’ argument and before the jury began its deliberations the plaintiff obj ected and moved for a mistrial.
I believe defendants’ argument was prejudicial to the Turnpike Authority and was not justified by any issue in the case, and that this argument very probably increased the size of the verdict.
Defendants contend that the argument complained of was legitimate argument in view of the testimony of Authority’s Chief Appraiser, Mr. Remington, and the “closing argument” of Turnpike. I am unable to follow this reasoning. Turnpike’s closing argument appears to be an effort to repair some of the damage done by defendants’ argument.
I would accept a remittitur of not less than $3,000.00, or give the plaintiff a new trial.