Court Opinion

ID: 9638867
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 15:57:09.083625+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:10.407834
License: Public Domain

WALLACE, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The court’s opinion is based upon its interpretation of Craig’s testimony as to the difference in the value of his land before and after the trespass by Porras. The fatal error in the opinion lies in placing undue emphasis on that portion of Craig’s testimony which is favorable to Porras and ignoring another portion of his testimony which supports the trial court’s judgment. The omitted testimony of Craig, the owner of the land in question, was:
Q: (Porras’ attorney). Now you’re telling the jury that the two acres have been damaged twenty thousand dollars worth or is worth twenty thousand dollars. Is that what you’re telling them?
A: (Craig) I’m telling them what I thought the land was valued before it was tore up and after it was tore up.

Q. Okay. So what you’re saying is that particular two acres is worth approximately twenty thousand dollars?
A. It is to me.
As stated in the court’s opinion, if the owner of real property has an opinion, he may testify as to the value of property owned by him. State v. Berger, 430 S.W.2d 557, 559 (Tex.Civ.App.—Waco 1968, writ ref’d n.r.e.). The jury returned a verdict of $7,000 damages to Craig’s property. We must sustain that verdict if there is any evidence to support it. Glover v. Texas General Indemnity Co., 619 S.W.2d 400 (Tex.1981). I would hold that the above testimony of Craig is some evidence to support the jury’s verdict.
*507The court’s opinion holds that Craig’s testimony is no evidence of the value of the land because the magic word “market” did not precede the word “value” in the questions propounded to Craig and in his answers. When the testimony concerning value is considered in its entirety one is lead to the obvious conclusion that the values being discussed are market values. Porras contends that Craig was testifying as to intrinsic value to him, not to market value. Porras emphasizes the last response of Craig’s which was: “It is to me.” Contrary to Porras’ contention, the obvious meaning of that sentence was that Craig was testifying as to his opinion of the value and not to anybody elses.
The opinion of the court refuses to distinguish betwen the testimony of Mr. Craig as to exemplary damages and as to actual damages. When testifying as to exemplary damages he referred to the setting of fires by Porras’ employees and permitting them to invade Craig’s property; posting notices on the fence that anyone crossing it would be shot; and the reckless disregard by Porras of the rights of not only Craig but other owners whose property abutted that of Porras. I would hold that the testimony of Craig quoted above is some evidence of the market value of the property which was damaged by Porras. Since there is some evidence to support the jury’s verdict we should affirm that verdict.
I would affirm the judgment of the court of appeals and of the trial court.
KILGARLIN, J., joins in this dissenting opinion.