Court Opinion

ID: 9547822
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:52:51.174801+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:18:08.044808
License: Public Domain

Floyd H. Coffman, District Judge, Assigned,
dissenting: The majority sustains a jury verdict for compensatory damages in the total amount of $102,000.00 supported only by the property owner’s opinion of total damage of $128,856.97 and Exhibit 34 which lists forty-two items on a schedule with five columns. This exhibit was prepared for this litigation and therefore has no probative value.
The format of Exhibit 34 is exemplified by the following extract:
Date Acquisition “Property Acquired _Cost Fair Market Value Prior to Loss, Damage
34. Contents of above tanks* 9/19/74 included in price of steel storage tanks $37,500 [hand written-explained below] $1.10/gnl
35. 1 Continental truck* 10/ — /77 $1,500.00 $3,450.00
41. 2-500 gal. pfaud- 2/07/75 ler glass lined and jacketed for pressure chemical reactors with 1,000 gal. mixed acid this equip, was part of a group of equip, purchased for $17,500.00 40,116.00 (total)
42. 2-pfaudler glass 9/18/74 330.00/ea. lined tanks 1,000.00/ea. $128,856.97”
A fifth column on the exhibit headed “Fair Market Value After Damage and Loss,” not listed above, carried the comment as to each of the 42 items: “This property was without value to Ultimate Chemical Company after damage or loss.” It is noted that this column which would total zero for the forty-two items listed is not the proper test of value of salvage items after the damage. The proper test even then is market or salvage value generally and not value to the owner (Ultimate Chemical) as listed.
Exhibit 34 which included the adding machine tape totaling the before loss value column as $128,856.97 was marked first as *733Exhibit 30 after being identified by Williams as a list he made personally in November showing the damaged equipment. Immediately before it was marked and identified, in response to a question by his counsel as to whether he made an attempt to determine what equipment was damaged by STI, the plaintiff Williams replied:
“Well, when, as we cleaned up the area and got into, the [sic] got into the area where the damage was done, we started making a listing of what was there and what, near as we could tell, what was in this pile and what was in that pile and what was tipped over in this tank and so forth. We made a very rough, rough, estimate of our damages. It was a very rough one.”
An envelope containing probably 200 pieces of paper was marked as Exhibit 31 and identified by Williams as being can-celled checks and cash receipts relating to the acquisition cost of some of the items listed on Exhibits 30-34 as well as estimates of cost of new equipment as to certain of the items.
Exhibit 34, the list of 42 items with an overall total “before loss value” shown by the attached tape to be $128,856.97, and Exhibit 31, the envelope containing “probably 200 pieces of paper” identified generally as referring to acquisition costs or values of items of property listed on Exhibit 34, were admitted over objection of defendant’s counsel.
In plaintiffs testimony on direct examination, he was not asked to testify regarding the market value of any of the separate items listed on Exhibit 34, nor was any evidence offered as to the basis used for fixing the values assigned to each item. The only oral testimony by plaintiff on direct examination as to damages was to recite the total of $128,856.97 as shown by the tape introduced, which amount counsel instructed him to write on the exhibit in longhand.
It was only by cross-examination that any explanation was made by Williams to the court and jury as to how any of the after loss value figures were arrived at. He acknowledged that some of the after loss values were arrived at by using some factor like 2.31 to five times; some were established by getting estimates on new tanks and equipment and a different method was used for chemicals, but it was never explained. On some items he used a factor of 2.31; on some a higher factor was used and on some he didn’t use a factor at all.
Referring to Exhibit 34 Williams was cross-examined as to *734items 34, 35 and 41 (extracted above for convenience). Item 35 listed “1 Continental truck” acquired more than one year earlier in October for the listed price of $1,500.00 and was given a market value of $3,450.00 on the exhibit. This truck was missing from the lot in November, 1978, when the list was made. Upon purchase the truck had apparently been towed to the lot; it had not been started during the year, and still had no battery in it. Upon being asked by the cross-examiner if Exhibit 34 “indicates that the fair market value prior to loss was $3,450.00.” Williams responded: “That’s what I have there.” He was then asked if he had a title to the truck and he responded: “Well, that was not an over-the-road truck. It was a tractor used on private land and it is not customary to have a title with anything like that.”
Item 41 on Exhibit 34 extracted above listed two 500 gallon Pfaudler glass lined and jacketed tanks for pressure chemical reactors with 1,000 gallons of mixed acid acquired February 7, 1975, as part of a chlorosulfation process purchased for $17,500.00 from DeSoto Steel which had been used by Procter and Gamble and was found for plaintiff by R & G Wrecking. This $17,500.00 acquisition included four 6,500 and two 2,200 gallon tanks all with insulation intact, several pump motors, and other equipment. Some of these tanks were manufactured by Pfaudler about 1951. Williams agreed that the market value of $40,116.00 listed for item 41 “is actually the cost of, is reflected from a 1981 price quotation” for new tanks.
Also extracted from Exhibit 34 is item number 34 as contents of above tanks which on the typed copy had a market value of “$1.10/gallon.” As this itemized list was being introduced as Exhibit 34 with the adding machine tape totaling $128,856.97, the record reflects that Williams was permitted to correct an error made by the typist, or whoever it was, by striking through “$1.10/gallon” and writing above it in longhand “$37,500.” Thus, Williams’ damage figure of $128,856.97 included $37,500.00 without one word of testimony about what was contained in the tanks which were acquired September 19, 1974, how the figure of $37,500.00 was arrived at, and indeed whether there was a present market for the contents which had obviously set on the 2300 State Line lot for more than four years.
The only other item from Exhibit 34 regarding which Williams was cross-examined was No. 5 which was not abstracted above. It *735was listed as “Rase for Jib Crane,” acquired June 12, 1974 for $250.00. Although the market value assigned by Williams was $899.00, he testified that this value was for the overall jib crane which he had never used in his business and had not sold after owning it four years.
A careful reading of the 255-page trial transcript in this case has convinced me that plaintiffs claim for $128,856.97 was submitted upon the bare statement of Williams, as owner, as to the total damage arrived at by totaling the figures inserted by him on his list prepared during November and December, 1978, for use in litigation or, hopefully, negotiation. If such an itemization of damages is marked as an exhibit and used during trial, its use must be limited to assisting counsel, the court and the jury (in a jury case) in following the testimony and building a record that can be followed and understood later by court and counsel and, if necessary, on appeal. Without use of such a schedule or exhibit, interpretation of a transcript becomes impossible where more than a few items are involved.
Failure to require the plaintiff to present testimony as to the estimate of market value of each or most of these 42 dissimilar items as well as the facts and knowledge forming the rational or reasonable basis for his opinion results in the burden of disproving plaintiff s lump sum claim being shifted from plaintiff to defendant. Such procedure is not permitted by the Kansas cases beginning with Roberts v. County of Brown, 21 Kan. 247 (1878), and repeated in Town Co. v. Leonard, 46 Kan. 354, 357, 26 Pac. 717 (1891), as quoted in McGrew v. Investment Co., 106 Kan. 348, 353, 187 Pac. 887 (1920), as follows:
‘“It is the function of the court or jury trying the case to determine from evidence properly presented what the amount of damages sustained is, and while it might be very convenient for the plaintiff to permit him and his witnesses to give the damages suffered in a lump, it would be a very unsafe practice to allow them to state the amount of damages supposed to be sustained, without regard to the facts or knowledge upon which their opinions were based. It is well settled that the practice is not permissible. (Roberts v. Comm’rs of Brown Co., 21 Kan. *247; Railroad Co. v. Kuhn, 38 id. 675; Town Co. v. Morris, 39 id. 377; C.K.&N. Rly. Co. v. Neiman, 45 id. 533.)’ (p. 357.)”
I would reverse and remand on the question of damages only, unless plaintiff is willing to accept a substantial remittitur of something like $45,000.00 leaving intact for plaintiff a recovery of $57,000.00 compensatory damages.
*736As to punitive damages defendant would be adequately punished, others deterred, and justice served by a reduction to $150,000.00. An award by the jury of $227,000.00 in punitive damages is shocking to my conscience under the record in this case. I believe the jury award of punitive damages under the facts of this case in excess of one quarter million dollars was prompted by sympathy for the plaintiff family corporation and passion after considering Williams’ tearful testimony. A better evaluation of the amount of money which would be necessary to punish defendant corporation could be made if evidence of defendant’s financial status, probably Exhibit 37, were included in the record on appeal upon timely request of counsel.
McFarland, J., joins the foregoing dissenting opinion.