Court Opinion

ID: 9696679
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:55:02.607301+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:25.328038
License: Public Domain

Snell, J.
(dissenting) — I would affirm.
The measure of damage in a partial taking is the difference in value before and after appropriation. The first proposition to be established in connection therewith is the value before taking. *55To establish or refute the claim as to value before taking evidence of comparable sales is admissible. The next proposition going to the ultimate question is the value after the taking. To show a reduction in value various elements claimed to have a bearing thereon may be considered. Mention of elements of damage to be considered is not the same thing and should not require reference to evidence going to proof of the premise from which consideration must start.
The majority opinion holds that in instruction No. 9 there was an error of omission. I think the criticism overlooks the distinction between an element to be considered and evidence going to the proof of an element or proposition.
I agree with the majority that when there is supporting evidence an instruction on comparable sales drawn in the light of the Redfield case is proper and desirable. I would announce this rule prospectively for the guidance of the bench and bar, but in the light of all the instructions given in this case would hold that no such prejudice appears here as to require reversal.