249 N.C. App. 333
N.C. Ct. App.2016Background
- NCDOT condemned 2.193 acres of Landmark at Battleground Park (a 32.76-acre, 240-unit apartment complex) for construction of the Greensboro Urban Loop, including relocation of Drawbridge Parkway and an elevated six‑lane highway with planned noise walls.
- The taking removed a significant wooded buffer and placed highway infrastructure visibly and acoustically close to the complex; NCDOT deposited $276,000 as just compensation.
- LAT Battleground (owner) claimed damages between about $3.1M and $3.7M; after trial the jury awarded $350,000.
- Disputed evidentiary points at trial: exclusion/limitation of a broker’s written valuation (James Collins) under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 93A‑83, exclusion of an acoustical “sound demonstration,” a juror’s post‑verdict disclosure about noise‑wall costs, and a special jury instruction concerning diminution from other owners’ adjoining takings/use.
- LAT Battleground appealed, arguing errors in evidentiary rulings, denial of a juror‑misconduct hearing and new trial, and an improper jury instruction; the Court of Appeals affirmed (no error).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (NCDOT) | Defendant's Argument (LAT Battleground) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Admissibility of James Collins’ valuation/report under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 93A‑83 | Collins’ broker report violated § 93A‑83 because it purported to opine on fair market value (an appraisal) rather than a permitted broker price opinion; therefore limit/exclude those parts | Collins should be allowed to testify fully about before‑and‑after fair market value as disclosed in his report | Court limited Collins to sales/leasing price opinion (not fair‑market‑value appraisal); limitation upheld as proper under § 93A‑83 and trial court discretion |
| 2. Exclusion of acoustical sound demonstration by Dr. Stewart | The demonstration was misleading, used ‘‘pink noise’’ not highway noise, and had limited probative value that was outweighed by potential prejudice/confusion under Rule 403 | The demonstration showed increased noise levels relevant to damages and should be admitted | Court excluded the demonstration after balancing (experts didn’t rely on it, noise not representative); exclusion not an abuse of discretion |
| 3. Juror misconduct and need for evidentiary hearing/new trial | Juror disclosure that a juror said noise walls would cost “millions” was internal/general information and not prejudicial extraneous information; no hearing/new trial required | Juror’s unsolicited statement about outside knowledge and costs was extraneous, prejudicial, and required an evidentiary hearing and new trial | Court held the statement was general/tangential (internal), not extraneous prejudicial information under Rule 606(b); denial of hearing/new trial affirmed |
| 4. Special jury instruction that owner cannot recover diminution caused by acquisition/use of adjoining lands of others | Instruction correctly states law that owner cannot recover diminution caused by proper public use of other owners’ lands not part of the taking | Instruction was erroneous because loss of view/wetlands across the street should be considered in after‑valuation | Instruction was a correct statement of law (per Creasman and related authority); no prejudicial error shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Carolina Power & Light Co. v. Creasman, 262 N.C. 390 (N.C. 1964) (owner of part of a tract may not recover diminution caused by use of other owners’ adjoining lands)
- United States v. Miller, 317 U.S. 369 (U.S. 1943) (principle that taking a portion of a tract requires consideration of relation of part to whole)
- Campbell v. United States, 266 U.S. 368 (U.S. 1924) (diminution from use of other lands of same undertaking is not compensable to a particular owner)
- Bd. of Transp. v. Brown, 34 N.C. App. 266 (N.C. Ct. App. 1977) (compensable damages to remainder only if demonstrably resultant from use of lands taken)
- State v. Black, 328 N.C. 191 (N.C. 1991) (trial court must investigate when substantial reason to fear jurors were exposed to improper matters)
- State v. Rosier, 322 N.C. 826 (N.C. 1988) (definition of extraneous information in juror inquiry context)
- State v. Bullard, 312 N.C. 129 (N.C. 1984) (trial court has wide latitude in admissibility of expert testimony)