Court Opinion

ID: 9654203
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 18:09:52.97502+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:06.775952
License: Public Domain

NORVELL, Justice
(dissenting).
The court below rendered judgment in this case for the total sum of $20,691.79, as and for the taking of a portion and damage to the remainder of a sixteen-acre tract of land located on Farm Road No. 495, some three-quarters of a mile in a northeasterly direction from the city limits of McAllen, Texas. Of the sixteen acres, 1.199 acres were condemned as a right of way for the purpose of laying a pipe line which was to serve as a part of appellant’s gas gathering system. Although the provisions of the easement contract provided that the pipe should be buried twenty-four inches below the surface of the ground, and • appellee Varnum Hall testified that he estimated the pipe was actually laid three to four feet below the surface, the jury allowed a recovery of $1,487.50 for the taking of the 1.199 acres: The jury found that the 14.801 acre balance had been damaged to the extent of $1,277.50 per acre.
This award of damages obviously cannot be supported upon the hypothesis of a diminution of the ¡value of the land for farming and agricultural purposes. It appears thát a residence had been built upon the premises, but no question of damage to this structure was submitted -to the jury or even suggested by the pleadings. Although the evidence shows that at the time of the laying of the pipe line and at,the. time of the trial, the appellees were farming their sixteen-acre tract by raising cotton and tomatoes thereon, and had never actually subdivided the tract for rural homesites or any other purpose, the award is sought to be sustained upon the premise that the property was suitable for subdivision and that its value for such purpose was destroyed by the laying of the pipe line. To say the least, the award is extremely high and, .in the opinion of this writer, the estimate of value for subdivision purposes was correctly described by one of appellees’ witnesses as a “speculative value.”
This Court recently had occasion to examine in detail, the rules relating to the granting of new trials for misconduct on the part of a jury. Trousdale v. Texas & N. O. R. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 264 S.W.2d 489, affirmed Tex., 276 S.W.2d 242. It is not my purpose to reiterate what was said in that opinion, other than to point out that in arriving at the probability of injury we must consider all of the pertinent record and that the amount of the award or judgment is necessarily an item of prime consideration. A deviation from a prescribed standard of conduct, which when coupled with a modest or reasonable award might *738be considered harmless, assumes a different aspect when the judgment approaches the exorbitant.
Four special issues were submitted to the jury. Nos. 1 and 2 relate to the difference in value of the 1.199 easement- strip before and after the laying of the pipe line thereon. Issues Nos. 3 and 4 relate to the damages sustained to the remainder of the tract (14.801 acres). Two former jurymen testified upon the hearing of the motion for new trial, and it appears that either while the jury was deliberating upon the answer to Special Issue No.' 2, or shortly thereafter, some of the members of the jury discussed the probability of a deep plow or ground chisel striking the gas pipe, tearing off its protective covering and thus allowing it to corrode and become weakened. This discussion was carried to the point of arguing that the pipe might explode and cause appellees’ house to bum. One of the juror witnesses testified that this discussion took place for a short period which he estimated at five minutes. This conversation took place before the jury answered’ Issues Nos. 3 and 4, relating to damages to the 14.801 acres remaining outside the easement area.
The fact that it may be common knowledge among farmers in Hidalgo County that a type of plow or chisel in general use in that county will disturb the soil to a depth of two feet, does not to my mind remove the prejudicial effect of the statement and ensuing discussion. The vice of such discussion lies in the fact that it introduced a new element into the case which was not pleaded, suggested, nor argued in open court. Issues Nos. 3 and 4 do not mention the subdivision value hypothesis, but that theory is urged here as supporting the verdict and was no doubt argued in the trial court. Yet the supposition of possible damage and deterioration of the pipe, consequent explosion' and fire, was urged within the secrecy of the jury room to support a large award of damages.
There is testimony in the record that gas carrying pipes- are carefully constructed, prepared and wrapped with a protective coating. It is shown by the evidence that in the absence of negligence in manufacture, preparation and placing, such pipes are not dangerous instrumentalities. The probability of a plow or chisel striking and injuring a pipe necessarily has reference to the depth at which the pipe is laid. It is not suggested that appellant was a party to this localized common knowledge relating to plow or chisel depth, and it may be supposed that had the pipe line company been informed in regard thereto by pleadings or otherwise, it would have agreed to lower its pipe rather than pay some fifteen to sixteen thousand dollars in advance for damages in case of a possible explosion.
Ordinarily the importation of some extraneous matter into a jury’s deliberation as a basis upon which to rear some rather fantastic argument would not constitute reversible error because of a lack of probable prejudice, but a $1,200 an acre verdict for damages to cotton and truck farming land (insofar as the actual use to which it is now being put is concerned), should give occasion for pause.. While appellees rely upon a “subdivision value” to support their judgment, it appears that the jury, or at least a portion of them, may have relied upon deep plowing, broken pipes and burning houses to support an extremely high and (to me) speculative recovery. I am of the opinion that probable prejudice was shown and that the judgment should be reversed.