Court Opinion

ID: 9685604
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:52:21.945235+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:08.562446
License: Public Domain

BECKER, Justice.
I respectfully dissent.
An examination of the record reveals plaintiffs’ evidence as to damages is squarely based on the rule for computation of such damages adhered to in this court, i. e., the difference in the value of the farm before the taking and the value after taking. Five witnesses testified and their per acre loss in value testimony was $100, $100, $60, $50 and $175. Two witnesses testified for defendant. Their per acre loss in value testimony was $5 and $7.50. The jury’s assessment of loss of value per acre was $47.
The ultimate question here is not how many acres are lost, or how hard it is to cultivate under and around the lines and poles, or how inconvenient the addition of this transmission line makes the use of the property. The basic question is how much did this condemnation procedure affect the fair market value of the farm as a whole.
A local jury assessed the damage well within the outer limits of the evidence. There was good, well qualified, expert opinion to sustain the assessment of the figure chosen or even higher. I see no *127reason to substitute our judgment for the combined expertise of the witnesses and the local jury. The jury verdict should be sustained.
MOORE, C. J., and MASON and RAW-LINGS, TT-, join in this dissent.