Court Opinion

ID: 9858255
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 16:19:17.84699+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:53:41.277001
License: Public Domain

CarletoN Harris, Chief Justice, dissenting. I find no legal basis for reducing this judgment. I think it should be pointed out that there is no assignment of error in regard to the admission or exclusion of evidence, no complaint as to the instructions, nor to the argument of conn-sel. The remittitur is determined simply because the Court feels the amount awarded is too large, though it is conceded that a much higher figure of damage was testified to by some of appellees’ witnesses. The majority say this was not substantial evidence, but we have many times held that the testimony of neighbors and others familiar with the property is competent evidence. City of Little Rock, et al. v. Octavia S. Sawyer, et al., 228 Ark. 516, 309 S. W. 2d 30; Fort Smith and Van Buren District v. Scott, 103 Ark. 405, 147 S. W. 440. In the latter case, this Court said: “The question of market value is to be determined upon the testimony of those who have knowledge upon that subject or whose business or experience entitles their opinions to weight and is usually established by the opinions of witnesses who are familiar with the property taken, this being one of the recognized exceptions to the general rule that witnesses are required to state facts and not express opinions. “ 'Intelligent men, who have resided a long time in the place and who are acquainted with the land in question, and say that they know its value, are competent although they are merchants or farmers and have never bought or sold land in the place. ’ *' * * ” Appellant argues that the verdict is so excessive as to indicate that it must have been founded upon passion and prejudice; however, nothing is pointed out in the record to substantiate this argument, except that the highway was referred to several times as a “speedway,” a concrete culvert beneath the highway as a likely place for “water moccasins and snakes,” and a few other remarks of a similar nature — nor does it appear that appellant objected to any of these statements. It is hardly plausible to believe that these remarks “worked the jury into such a frenzy ” as to cause them to ignore all logic, and their oaths as jurors, and result in their bringing in a verdict based on outraged feelings. It simply appears to me that this Court is substituting its judgment for that of the jury. I therefore respectfully dissent. Justice McFaddin joins in this dissent.