Court Opinion

ID: 9538298
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:34:29.571741+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:43.323718
License: Public Domain

*349STEWART, Justice:
Defendant Donald K. Barton appeals, complaining of the inadequacy of a jury award of $40,000 for his 24.49 acre tract of land in Manti taken by eminent domain by the plaintiff.
The defendant’s first argument in support of his contention that insufficient damages were awarded for his property is that the plaintiff’s complaint itself had stated the value to be $48,980. The rejoinder to this is that that figure included both the land and water rights. The trial court correctly ruled that the water rights were not to be taken. Plaintiff’s appraiser testified that the defendant’s property would be worth substantially less without the water rights. Accordingly, the $40,000 awarded could reasonably be found to be supported by the expert testimony as to the value of the land. Nevertheless, what the defendant was entitled to was the value of his land as fixed by the jury, based upon the evidence, and not necessarily as stated in the pleadings of either party.
Defendant further urges that the trial court committed error which influenced the jury in not awarding greater damages in its rulings concerning testimony about the sale of an acre of land in Manti to the L.D.S. (“Mormon”) Church for $10,000 by one Grant Cox. The trial court’s statement that it was not a comparable sale is apparently correct. The testimony of the defendant’s appraiser, Marcellus Palmer, and the plaintiff’s witness, Wilbur Cox, indicated that the transaction involved more than one acre and that Grant Cox was to give the church some adjoining property as part of the deal.
Defendant also complains about permitting Wilbur Cox to be called as a witness concerning this transaction. He asserts that it had been agreed, and the court included in its pre-trial order, that the only witnesses to be called were those named therein, except for rebuttal. Rebuttal evidence is that which tends to refute, or to so modify or explain, as to nullify or minimize the effect of the opponent’s evidence. See Soliz v. Ammerman, 16 Utah 2d 11, 395 P.2d 25 (1964). Since the testimony Mr. Palmer had given about the Cox transaction could have been regarded as requiring explanation, it was quite proper and consistent with the just-stated definition to consider Wilbur Cox’s testimony as rebuttal. See Jenson v. S. H. Kress & Co., 87 Utah 434, 49 P.2d 958 (1935). It is also pertinent to note that the defendant cross-examined Wilbur Cox about the matter without showing any significant difference from the other evidence. We are unable to perceive how the trial court’s rulings, or what was said with respect to the Cox sale, resulted in any prejudice to the defendant.
Defendant also assigns error in the trial court’s ruling concerning Dee Ogden, who had made an appraisal at the instance of the plaintiff. Pursuant to a discussion of this matter in the absence of the jury, plaintiff requested the court to rule that the defendant could not elicit before the jury the fact that Ogden had been employed by the plaintiff Board of Education. The plaintiff’s motion was
[t]o prevent Mr. Ogden from, in any way, testifying or the defendant landowner from asking the witness that his appraisal was made for the School Board, or that Mr. Ogden was paid a fee ....
The trial court explained its ruling as follows:
The motion is granted and it looks to me like it would not be proper and I think I would be committing prejudicial error to allow this to go in. You can call him for an appraisal but not to give testimony that he was employed by the School District or make any reference to the School District’s paying him so you may get his appraisal, but that’s the limit of it, Mr. Ogden.
The trial court erred in ruling that the defendant could call Ogden to give his appraisal of the condemned land but could not be questioned as to the fact that he was employed by the school district. That testimony went to the heart of the issue at trial.
Defendant’s purpose was to elicit testimony concerning the value of the property, *350which it may be assumed was greater than what plaintiff’s witnesses had testified to. It was, of course, directly probative of the central issue in the case. But equally important, defendant had strong reason and a legal right to ask Ogden the identity of his employer. That testimony, with the likelihood of greater objectivity, would have served to rebut the valuation testimony of plaintiff’s expert witnesses. To deny the defendant that right is to deny him a fair trial. The jury was entitled to know the essential background facts of the witness so as to be able to give proper weight to his testimony.
The term “expert testimony” connotes a degree of objectivity imposed by the discipline and training of the expert. But valuation testimony as to property in a condemnation proceeding sometimes falls short of that objective, partly because of the numerous subjective and variable values, and therefore may differ sharply from the testimony of another expert witness. Experts’ opinions, especially in the area of valuation of property, often vary so widely that one may wonder whether they are valuing the same parcel of land.
The court in this case prevented inquiry as to the identity of the employer of an expert witness. The jury could not, therefore, evaluate the process by which plaintiff chose his experts nor determine the appropriate weight to be afforded the testimony of the witnesses for the respective parties.
The defendant had a right to bring to the jury’s attention the fact that a witness had been initially enlisted by plaintiff and pursuant to that employment had acquired his knowledge and formed his opinion as to the property’s value. The circumstances by which Ogden became aware of the facts needed to form his opinion provided the necessary foundation for the jury to weigh the valuation testimony. More importantly, his employment bore directly on the all-important issue of his objectivity or bias. This information was essential, especially in light of the highly disparate views of the same facts that may be arrived at by different experts. See Myers, “Battle of the Experts”: A New Approach to an Old Problem in Medical Testimony, 44 Neb.L. Rev. 539 (1965); McCoid, Opinion Evidence and Expert Witnesses, 2 U.C.L.A.L.Rev. 356 (1955); DeParcq, Law, Science and the Expert Witness, 24 Tenn.L.Rev. 166 (1956).
Expert witnesses, like other witnesses, are influenced by unconscious, and sometimes conscious, biases. The problem of the expert witness’s bias has been commented on by Dean Wigmore:
That bias itself is due, partly to the special fee which has been paid or promised him, and partly to his prior consultation with the party and his selfcommittal to a particular view. His candid scientific opinion thus has had no fair opportunity of expression, or even of formation, swerved as he is by this partisan committal .... [2 Wigmore on Evidence § 563 at 761 (Chadbourn rev. 1979).]
Defendant clearly was entitled to the testimony which the prohibited questions would have elicited, simply because it may well have been less likely to be biased than any of the other experts called by the parties. This is especially true in this case because the valuation of plaintiff’s and defendant’s experts were poles apart. Ogden’s appraisal was made under the direction of the party adverse to the party who sought to adduce Ogden’s testimony and thus carried a mark of objectivity that may not have been commanded by the other experts.
The defendant did not propose to call Ogden simply to impeach him. The questions prohibited by the trial court could not possibly have resulted in impeaching the witness; indeed, they would have given weight and substance to his testimony. If the proffered testimony would have discredited anyone’s testimony, it would have been the testimony offered by plaintiff’s witnesses. It is axiomatic that an attack on the credibility of a party’s witnesses may be conducted by the other party either by his own cross-examination of the witnesses or by calling other witnesses to accomplish that purpose. Haver v. Central Railroad Co., 64 N.J.L. 312, 45 A. 593 (1900). More *351importantly, the testimony, because of its direct relevance as to value, went well beyond impeachment evidence.
Before Ogden was permitted to testify, plaintiff’s counsel interrupted by approaching the bench for a discussion and made the motion above referred to to prevent the testimony of the witness. The court responded by an order which precluded defendant’s obtaining the testimony regarding the witness’s employment by the school district or any reference to the school district’s paying him to make an appraisal. Having been denied the right to examine the witness properly and to adduce the evidence of employment, the defendant cannot be faulted for not having called the witness to testify solely as to the amount of his appraisal. Such testimony, no doubt, would have been lower than the amounts testified to by defendant’s other experts and therefore without the necessary information as to the witness’s background, damaging to defendant’s case. Accordingly, the defendant was effectively precluded from calling Ogden under the restriction imposed.
Because of that error which appears to us as substantial and prejudicial, it is necessary that the judgment be reversed and the case remanded. No costs awarded.
MAUGHAN, WILKINS and HALL, JJ., concur.