2015 Ohio 470
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Mark Knapke bought a 34.5‑acre Mercer County farm in 2003 and later placed it in the Mark L. Knapke Revocable Trust; flooding increased after Grand Lake St. Marys (GLSM) spillway modifications in 1997.
- Ohio Supreme Court held a taking occurred from the spillway changes and ordered ODNR to commence appropriation proceedings. State ex rel. Doner v. Zody led to ODNR filing a petition to appropriate a permanent flowage easement over the Knapke property.
- The sole issue for a jury was just compensation: difference in market value of the property before and after the easement (R.C. 163.09). Extent of the taking was not for the jury.
- The Knapkes’ appraiser valued the loss at $455,200 (before $505,800; after $50,600). ODNR’s appraiser valued the loss at $84,500 (before $345,600; after $261,100).
- The jury awarded $293,250. ODNR appealed, arguing (1) the trial court improperly denied a jury view, (2) the court admitted prejudicial exhibits and excluded ODNR evidence, and (3) the court gave prejudicial jury instructions; ODNR also argued cumulative error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (ODNR) | Defendant's Argument (Knapkes) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jury view under R.C. 163.12 | Court erred by denying mandatory jury view; statute uses "shall" | Jury view would be misleading because flooding is intermittent and photos/testimony already show conditions | Denial not an abuse of discretion: view could give a prejudicial snapshot of a temporary condition and the record contained photos/testimony showing both flooded and dry conditions |
| Admission/exclusion of evidence | Trial court admitted irrelevant/prejudicial items (e.g., newspaper photo) and excluded ODNR witness re: post‑2011 lake‑level management | Knapkes: proffered photos/reports were relied upon by their appraiser and relevant to value and access; exclusion of lake‑level testimony was proper because it related to extent/use, not value | Court abused discretion in admitting one page (newspaper/photo of near‑drowning car) as more prejudicial than probative, but error was harmless given the rest of the 55‑page report and the record; exclusion of ODNR witness was not an abuse and caused no prejudice because appraisals already reflected post‑2011 conditions |
| Jury instruction wording | Court should have used Doner syllabus language "intermittent, but inevitably recurring" instead of "frequent, severe, and persistent," which prejudiced ODNR | Knapkes: wording accurately reflected trial evidence of severity and persistence | Instruction was not erroneous or prejudicial: terms were supported by testimony and by ODNR’s own appraisal language; better practice might mirror Doner’s wording but no reversible error |
| Cumulative error | Combined small errors deprived ODNR of a fair trial | Errors were either not prejudicial or individually harmless; jury award fell within experts’ ranges | Even assuming cumulative‑error doctrine applies to civil cases, the record shows no unfair trial; verdict was within appraisal range and not unreasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Doner v. Zody, 130 Ohio St.3d 446 (Ohio 2011) (held flooding constituted a taking and described it as intermittent but inevitably recurring)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse of discretion standard)
- City of Akron v. Alexander, 5 Ohio St.2d 75 (Ohio 1965) (discussing circumstances where a jury view may be denied)
- Columbus-Suburban Coach Lines v. Pub. Util. Comm., 20 Ohio St.2d 125 (Ohio 1969) (statutory construction: give effect to the words used)