Court Opinion

ID: 9863693
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 05:52:57.062704+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:04:09.117009
License: Public Domain

TAYLOR, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
The parcel of land being condemned, .66 of an acre, equals about 15% of the larger five-acre tract owned and occupied by respondents. The entire tract was sold by Sweet and wife to Sitz and McCullough about two years prior to the commencement of this action for the sum of $75,000. The $10,000 allowed by the jury as the value of the property taken is not questioned by appellant. It is urged that the $65,000 severance damage to the property not taken is excessive and was awarded by the jury under the influence of passion or prejudice.
While the action was pending and before the trial, defendant Sweet made a public announcement which was published in the Weiser-American, a newspaper published in Weiser and of general circulation in Washington county, where the action was tried. The news item accompanying the announcement recited that the defendants McCullough and Sitz had previously announced they would be unable to continue the livestock auction business after the state had taken the property needed for the underpass-cloverleaf, unless a new site or additional land could be secured. Sweet’s signed announcement, as thus published, contained the following:
“Even if the present owners are sufficiently compensated in the condemnation proceedings in Court, lack of space and lack of a suitable location might force the Sale Yard to close. * * * .
“The construction of the proposed underpass will hamper the operation of *199the Weiser Livestock Commission Company to such an extent that it will he necessary to move the barn from the present location. The facilities for handling hogs, sheep and baby calves will be completely destroyed. The rest of the facilities will be so reduced in size and so inaccessible that it will be impossible to handle all livestock in enough volume to justify keeping the Sale Yard open. * * *
“Personally, I would prefer to continue to operate the Snake River Feeding as one one unit in the manner that it has been operated for the past fifteen years, however, I feel that the continued operation of a Sale Yard at Weiser is necessary for the continued prosperity of the town.
“The presence of the Sale Yard in Weiser since it was first established has been a great asset to Weiser and to Washington County. The present owners have operated the sale yard with the same suyccess as previous owners. Through the years the sale yard has established a good market that is close and convenient for the farmers and stockmen in Washington County.
“The presence of such a good market here in the community assures our Washington County farmers and stock-men of better prices and bigger profits. This creates a healthier economy for Weiser. It brings many people into town each week, not only from Washington County but from as far away as Baker County, Oregon. Weiser and Washington County cannot allow this business to close up. Even though it would terminate the operation of the Snake River Feeding company at its present location, I want to do what I can to help make it possible for the Sale Yard to continue to operate in Weiser.”
Sweet’s offer, as published in the newspaper, was to sell to the state highway department a portion of a feeding lot owned by him adjacent to and east of the property of the commission company, and on the opposite side from the portion of the commission company property which was being taken by the state for highway purposes. How the highway department could use the land thus offered, Sweet did not state. Presumably he thought the highway department could trade the land thus acquired on the east for the right of way area it sought on the west. Such an exchange of land was proposed by the state highway department in the case of State ex rel. Rich v. Dunclick, Inc., 77 Idaho 45, 286 P.2d 1112. In that case this court held that the owner of land being condemned was entitled to be paid therefor in cash, and could not be required to accept an exchange of land.
*200Mr. Sweet’s published statement, that “If the Highway Department wants to the way is open to take care of this problem in such a way that we can have the underpass and a Sale Yard as well”, is therefore erroneous and calculated to lead the public to believe that the failure of the highway department to settle the condemnation action on a basis that would allow the people of Weiser and Washington county to enjoy both the sale yard and the underpass was due to a wilful and unreasonable attitude on the part of department officials. The entire article was intended to impress the towns people of Weiser and the farmers of Washington county of the importance of the sale yard as a local business institution; that its existence was being threatened by the condemnation proceedings; and that a great and irreparable detriment was about to be unjustly imposed upon the residents of the city and county.
At the trial, while owner Sitz was being cross-examined, counsel for the highway department made reference to another newspaper article published in the WeiserAmerican the day before the trial, and stated that he believed that McCullough was quoted in the paper. McCullough, from a point in the courtroom, shouted, “You’re crazy.” The trial judge warned McCullough against the outburst and instructed the jury to disregard it. While the plaintiff’s witness McDowell was being examined, there was loud laughter from someone in the audience, directed at a question asked by plaintiff’s counsel. Counsel called the court’s attention to the fact that this was the “third or fourth time this has happened,” and referred to it as outbursts by the defendants. Again the court warned the spectators against such conduct.
The following is a summary of the testimony of defendants’ witnesses as to severance damage:
Witness Value placed by witness on property
Before After
Condemnation Condemnation
Kermit Decker $ 125,000 to 130.000 Practically nothing
Ralph MeEwen 125.000 Nothing
Homer G. Parker 130.000 Worthless as Sale Yard
Virgil Sweet 120.000 to 130.000 Nothing; $25,000 for sale-purpose.
Rod McCullough 130.000 Nothing
Harold Doan 125.000 to 140.000 Nothing
Norman Sitz 135.000 Nothing as a Sale Yard.
Of these witnesses, Sitz and McCullough were owner-purchasers; Sweet was an unpaid seller; and Decker, Doan and Parker were operators of other sale yards. Aside from their interest in the issue, and their willingness to place an excessive maximum value on the property before condemnation, their testimony that the remaining property was worth “nothing”, or “nothing as a sale yard”, after the condemnation, is quite convincing that they were prejudiced wit*201nesses. Their testimony shows their opinions as to values were entitled to little weight.
The motion for a new trial, in addition to alleging the ground of excessive damages awarded by the jury under the influence of passion or prejudice, alleges the following:
“3. That during the course of the trial and in the presence of the jury, one of the defendants, seated in the rear of the court room, arose and shouted remarks interrupting and contradicting plaintiff’s attorney while addressing the Court, which said shouted remarks were calculated to and did in fact prejudice the jury against the plaintiff and plaintiff’s attorney.
“4. That prior to and during the course of the trial herein, certain of the defendants caused quoted statements concerning the merits of the case herein to be printed in the local newspapers, all to the detriment and prejudice of the plaintiff.”
The award of excessive severance damage was the result of prejudice generated in the community before the trial and which expressed itself at the trial in the conduct of the defendants and in the testimony of their witnesses. The trial was conducted in an atmosphere of prejudice against the plaintiffs and in favor of the defendants. It is difficult to understand how such prejudice could hut influence the jury and taint its verdict. The amount of the verdict indicates that it did. If our jury system is to fulfill its role in the administration of justice, our courts must he ever alert and zealous in protecting the purity of the verdict. See, Checketts v. Bowman, 70 Idaho 463, 220 P.2d 682; 66 C.J.S. New Trial § 52, p. 166. Under the circumstances it was an abuse of discretion to deny the motion for a new trial.
I, therefore, dissent.