Court Opinion

ID: 9674647
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:32:40.765131+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:28.832754
License: Public Domain

MONTGOMERY, Judge
(dissenting)'.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion because I feel that the objection made to the testimony concerning residential lots was preserved and the damages are excessive.
During the cross-examination of a witness for the Commonwealth, appellees’ counsel, over objection made, introduced a subdivision plat of the land in controversy. At that time counsel for the Commonwealth stated that he wished to obj ect to any testimony or any maps showing the intended use of the property as a subdivision, and referred to a case in which the Commonwealth had been required to pay for graveyard lots in a similar instance. Exception was granted to the court’s denial of the objection and counsel then requested a standing objection to all questions with reference to the landowners’ intended use of the land for subdivision purposes. Counsel for appellant then specifically objected to the next twenty or thirty questions asked concerning the proposed subdivision.
The single issue to be determined in this condemnation proceeding is the one of value of the land taken and the damages resulting to the remaining land. The sole purpose for which the subdivision plat was sought to be introduced was to influence the jury in arriving at the amount of damages to be awarded. The landowners were permitted to introduce evidence of the value of the platted lots in the proposed subdivision. One must be blind to reality to ignore the fact that such evidence did influence the jury. I feel that the objections made were sufficient to apprise the trial court that evidence as to the value of the land as subdivided lots was objectionable.
Further, there was evidence that the 55-acre farm was listed for taxes at $4,500. The landowners fixed the value of the home and outbuildings at $12,000 to $16,000. When these factors are considered with the other testimony and the amounts awarded, it is evident that the verdict was excessive.
*681In this case the substantial rights of the appellant have been affected by a palpable error, and even though it may have been insufficiently raised or preserved for review, relief should be granted to correct a manifest injustice. CR 61.02. The judgment should be reversed.