Court Opinion

ID: 9678999
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:38:00.514493+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:09.505005
License: Public Domain

Carter, J.,
dissenting.
The sole issue in this case is the reasonable market value of plaintiff’s land at the time it was taken on August 26, 1963. It is my contention that certain evidence permitted by the trial court was inadmissible and so prejudicial as to require a new trial. I concur fully with the dissent of Newton, J., in this respect. His dissent is not only the law of this state, as the cases cited therein demonstrate, but it is reasonable and logical in its application to the peculiar facts of the case. I do not direct this dissent to the damages awarded to the Ger-hold Company nor to plaintiff’s claim of enhanced value because of the gravel deposits with which the land was underlaid. It is my contention that the evidence of the value of the property for recreational use after the gravel is removed is speculative, conjectural, imaginative, *62and too remote, and consequently inadmissible.
I submit that the correct rule for determining the value of property taken by eminent domain is its reasonable market value at the time it is taken. Such reasonable market value includes its adaptability for some particular use which is reasonably anticipated in the immediate future. The adaptability for such use must be so reasonably probable and so reasonably expected in the immediate future as to affect the reasonable market value of the land at the time it is taken. Sump v. Omaha Public Power Dist., 168 Neb. 120, 95 N. W. 2d 209. I contend that the evidence of future use for recreational purposes is too remote in time and so speculative and conjectural in character as to make it inadmissible.
Plaintiff’s land consists of 284 acres of land in and along the banks of the Platte River in Sarpy County. It includes Cedar Island which is about 1% miles long, containing 173 acres. This island is covered by scrub trees and brush. It is underlaid with a gravel bed ap<proximately 50 feet in depth which has considerable commercial value. The remaining 111 acres was low riverbed land. It lay in the chute and the bed of the river. Cedar Island was subject to a gravel lease owned by the Gerhold Company. This lease was for a period of 10 years with an option to renew for a period of 10 years, and, at the end of the two 10-year leases, the lessee was to have the right to> renegotiate a new lease. The lessee was given the exclusive right to pump and excavate gravel during the period of such leases. The evidence is that it would take a minimum of 12 years to remove the gravel deposits although the lessee could take up: to 20 years to do so. Can it reasonably be said that a purchaser would be so influenced by the possibility of a recreational area that he would pay more than a half million dollars for the unmined gravel and the mere possibility that after 12 to 20 years a subdivision of residence lots on a nonexistent lake in a mined-out gravel pit would enhance its value? I think not. *63In permitting this evidence, speculation reigns supreme, remoteness becomes telescopic nearness, and the opinions of the experts on land values tend only to. give substance to unreality.
It must be presumed that this speculative, conjectural, and remote evidence contributed to the size of the verdict to the prejudice of the appellant. The trial court permitted a plat of nonexistent land, bordering a nonexistent lake, in an imagined recreational area, which could not approach reality for 12 to 20 years, if ever, to prove reasonable market value. I can find no case that will sustain the admission into evidence of such a plat. To thus convert a mined-out gravel pit into a modern recreational area by such a prophesy of the future has no standing as substantive evidence of the reasonable value of the land in 1963.
It must be borne in mind that the scheme of the recreational area testified to has no basis in fact, but is a mere possibility invented to increase the size of the verdict in this case. Can it be said that such a possible scheme after a period of 12 years is so reasonably probable and so' reasonably anticipated in the immediate future as to influence its. reasonable market value at the time of the taking? Can it reasonably be said that such a possible use after 20 years, the actual situation here, is so reasonably probable and so reasonably expected in the immediate future as to influence its reasonable market value? The asking of these questions points to the proper answers, to wit: An emphatic “NO.”
Rules of evidence are established to. insure the consideration of cases on the pertinent facts. They constitute a shield to protect against evidence that tends to prejudice a jury but which has no pertinency to the issues involved. But when such rules are given a theoretical application rather than a practical one, their purpose is thwarted and they become a sword rather than a shield. The majority opinion extends applicable rules much further than this court has even gone before by *64unduly extending existing rules, by citing authorities from other states inconsistent with generally accepted rules, and by applying a theoretical construction of existing rules rather than a practical one. By this means, the majority opinion arrives at a result inconsistent with the long-established law of this state. Thus, under the guise of law, speculative, conjectural, and remote evidence is permitted to be considered by the jury and to authorize a verdict not based on the relevant and material facts. In this manner, the majority opinion stresses strained theories of the law, but gives little attention to their application to> the hard, cold facts of the case. I submit that the verdict in this case can be sustained only on such approach. The gates have been swung open for the future for the admission of speculative and remote evidence and permit verdicts not based on the reasonable market value of the property at the time of taking.
The majority opinion gives lip- service to the rule prohibiting speculative and remote evidence by the following quote: “However, much of the confusion can be resolved by pointing out that such evidence is inadmissible as speculative and conjectural when the only showing is that the property could be used for subdivision purposes.” No- statement could better fit the facts of this case. The opinion, however, disposes of the matter contrary thereto by the following conclusional statement which has no application to the facts of this case: “Where, on the other hand, as here, the use for subdivision purposes is not merely speculative and too remote to influence present market value, such evidence is admissible.” Speculation, conjecture, and remoteness, as used in the rule, appear rather meaningless if it does not apply to the present case. The plan of development after the gravel has been excavated some 12 to 20 years in the future calls for the creation of a circular lake within the depleted gravel pit containing a central island connected to the outer portion of Cedar Island by a bridge to provide egress and ingress to and from 166 lakefront *65lots and 66 riverfront lots, all of which is nothing more than pure speculation and conjecture. In no other way-can a jury visualize a depleted gravel pit, after 20 years of gravel excavation, as the valuable residence area which the plaintiff and his witnesses prophesy. Such imagina-, tion approaches pure fantasy, and when given the semblance of reality by judicial ruling, necessarily misleads the jury and produces a verdict that is unrealistic and erroneous.
In addition to the foregoing, I submit that the verdict is not sustained by the evidence. One of plaintiff’s two expert witnesses fixed the value at $1,500,000, and the other from $825,000 to $925,000. One of defendant’s experts fixed the value of the land at $85,000, the second at $90,000, and the third at $106,232. The verdict of the jury was $510,150. It will be noted that no expert witness for either party valued the land within $300,000 of the jury verdict. In fact, there is no evidence of value by any witness within $300,000 of the verdict returned. The majority opinion makes the point that juries need not believe an expert witness; that their expert opinions are advisory only to the jury. Granting the correctness of this statement, what evidence remains other than the expert testimony to sustain this verdict? There is none other than that of the plaintiff who testified to the grandiose value of $2,000,000. The majority opinion, other than pointing out that the evidence of experts is advisory and not binding on the jury, does not point up the evidence that sustains this verdict. The opinion assumes that if a verdict falls within the minimum and maximum values fixed by experts, the evidence sustains the verdict no matter how unreasonable, imaginary, or illusory it miay be. But this is' not a rule of law, but rather, a legal cliché for sustaining a verdict when the competent evidence is in conflict and sufficient to sustain a verdict within the limits of the competent evidence. I submit that a verdict must be supported by competent evidence which is not the case here. ; v
*66In my opinion the verdict is based on incompetent evidence. It is also erroneous in that it is not supported by evidence sufficient to sustain the amount of the verdict. I would reverse the judgment and remand the cause for a new trial.