Court Opinion

ID: 9627827
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:55:59.91876+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:51.027904
License: Public Domain

Smith, J.
(concurring specially): I agree the case should be sent back for a new trial. I cannot agree, however, with what the court says about the answers to questions 4 and 5. I would not bother to write anything since the end result is the same were it not for my conviction that the treatment given these two answers will cause the court trouble some time in the future.
Questions 3 and 4 have nothing whatever to do with damages to the land. In proceedings of this sort there are only two questions, actually. One is the value of the land taken and the other is damage to the residue. That is all the damages ever proper to consider aside from damages to personal property, about which there is no dispute here.
Questions 1 and 2 and questions 4 and 5 each present a different formula for ascertaining the same result. Questions 1 and 2 are proper to enable the parties to be sure the jury, in the case of condemnation of a right-of-way for a gas pipe line, gives the condemner the benefit of the value of the right to use, remaining in the landowner after the pipe line is built.
In a record such as this, where the jury found no damage to the residue, question 5 should have been answered by subtracting the value of the land taken, that is, in this case, $51.27, from the value of the entire quarter section. Thus the answer to question 5 should have been $13,948.73. Had the jury intended to find any damage to the residue it could have added whatever amount it found to the value of the land taken, and subtracted that amount from $14,000, the amount found to be the original value of the quarter section. This plus the item for damages to personal property should have been calculated to give the amount of the general verdict. Since this jury twice found no damage to the residue, the general *186verdict should, to be consistent with the answers to questions 1 and 2 and questions 4 and 5, have been for $51.27, plus the amount agreed upon for damages to personal property. Since there was a discrepancy between the answers to questions 1 and 2 and questions 4 and 5, I agree there should be a new trial.
My only reason for writing this specially concurring opinion is, I am sure confusion in the future will result from what is said in the prevailing opinion.