Court Opinion

ID: 9533239
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:29:44.275389+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:58.763971
License: Public Domain

ELLETT, Justice
(concurring) :
I concur, but in view of the dissent filed herein, I wish to add that I do not retreat *206from the holding in the case of State By and Through State Road Comm. v. Williams.1 That case held that one could not recover damages because of noise. The instant opinion is not to the contrary.
In the Williams case the judge, as trier of the facts, found and allowed severance ' damages in the sum of $3,200. This item included diminution in market value of the land not taken due to the severance of a part of the land and to the construction of the improvement. He allowed nothing for noise as a separate factor, and we affirmed.
Naturally, market value will reflect the effect of noise, vibration, dust, odors, etc.; and insofar as severance damages are concerned, they are factors which are bound to have an influence on what a willing buyer will pay.
Just compensation for land taken under eminent domain proceedings requires that the landowner be made whole from a financial point of view. That is, he should be paid the fair market value of the land taken and for any diminution in the fair market value of the remaining land due to the severance of the part taken and the construction of the improvement. In other words, he should recover for the land taken and for diminution in the fair market value of the remaining land.
In the instant matter an expert witness gave his opinion as to the fair market value of the remaining land. On cross-examination he was asked if he considered noise as a factor in arriving at his opinion. He answered that he did. It is upon that answer that appellant seeks a reversal of the judgment of the trial court.
This court has never held that noise as such was compensable in condemnation matters, but it has always allowed damages for diminution in market value caused by severance of a part of the land and by the construction of the improvement made.
The improvements made might benefit the remaining land to such an extent that the fair market value thereof would exceed the fair market value of the total tract before the taking. In such a case, the statute2 provides that just compensation requires that the owner be paid only for the land actually taken. The fair market value of land in all cases is an essential factor to be considered in arriving at a proper amount to allow by way of damages in condemnation cases. That was done in the instant matter, and in my opinion the judgment should be affirmed.

. 22 Utah 2d 331, 452,P.2d 881 (1969).

. Sec. 78-34-10(4), U.C.A. 1953.