85 S.E. 390 | N.C. | 1915
After stating the case: In this case both parties appealed to this Court from the judgment below, the defendant upon the ground that the land was not subject to condemnation under our statute which exempts certain property from the operation of the law. This view was rejected by the Court, the writer of this opinion dissenting. The plaintiff's contention that there were errors in the rulings and charge of the court below was sustained and a new trial ordered.
The first five errors, in our former decision, now assigned, may naturally be considered together, as if we were wrong in holding that (160) only the value of the land actually taken, and the direct physical injury to that which was left, can be considered, there was error, and the other assignments relate only to the extent of the error. We are satisfied, upon reconsideration of the case, that the rule thus stated by the Court was entirely too narrow and restricted, and if applied without modification, or, at least, full explanation, will not afford just compensation to those whose lands may be appropriated for a public use; but we do not think this requires that the former conclusion or judgment of this Court should be reversed, for reasons to be hereinafter stated.
It may be said, generally, that there are some, if not many, indirect injuries to land, not necessarily of a physical kind, which will diminish its value, and which are susceptible of the kind of proof which the law requires in cases generally. It may, in the beginning, be readily and fully conceded that mere conjecture, speculation, or surmise is not allowed by the law to be a basis of proof in respect of damages or compensation. The testimony offered should tend to prove the fact in question with reasonable certainty. Byrd v. Express Co.,
The case of Austin v. R. R.,
We may pause here to state that we need not decide whether risk from fires likely to be caused by negligence may be considered in the general estimate, for there is no such question presented by the exceptions, as there was no special instruction given in regard thereto.
We do not perceive why the case of R. R. v. Church,
The above cases fairly and fully illustrate the prevailing doctrine of the courts and the utmost extreme, in some instances, far beyond those here proposed, to which it has been carried. Instructive cases as to special features of the subject will be found in R. R. v. Mendosa,
We are of the opinion that those called "experts" in this case were competent to give their opinion as to the value of the land or plant and its depreciation by the location of the right of way and the uses to which it was afterwards put by the plaintiff. They were not testifying, it appears, strictly as experts, but with actual knowledge of the land and its improvements, its situation, uses and surroundings, and their several opinions were based upon such knowledge, aided by their long observation and experience in the same kind of business which is carried on by defendant on the premises in question. It would seem that *215
the competency of such evidence was expressly decided in R. R. v. Church,supra, by this Court. But there are other cases equally as strong in support of its competency. Davenport v. R. R.,
But it is suggested that these supposed elements of damage are common to all persons along the line of railway whose property is similarly circumstanced, that is, there is the same exposure to fire, smoke, noise, dangers, and hazards to persons, as well as property. In the first place, there is no evidence that there is any plant, the same (167) as this one or bearing any resemblance to it, on the line of this railway, or, if there is, that it is affected in the same way; but apart from this consideration, the dangers, hazards, inconveniences and annoyances, etc., are not, in such a case as this, to be regarded as in any just or legal sense common to other landowners, and that doctrine should not apply when land is taken and appropriated to a use, as here, which directly injures or damages the property, because of its peculiar nature, though not necessarily in a physical way. As we have already shown, this question is virtually settled by the decision in R. R. v. Armfield, at last term,
It was competent to prove the value of the land, with its improvements, or the entire plant, before and after the taking, as tending to show the depreciation and the amount of compensation. R. R. v. Church, supra; Brownv. Power Co., supra, and Jeffreys v. Osborne,
We, therefore, conclude that defendant was entitled to prove that the value of its plant had been appreciably affected to its detriment (168) by the noise, smoke, cinders, jarring, discomfort, inconvenience, and other like causes incident to the running of the trains on the right of way, and by the risks and dangers of fire and of injury to employees and their children, and to show, further, that the use of the right of way, because of such things, would disorganize its help and tend to drive its operatives away, by rendering their condition uncomfortable, if not intolerable, and require the defendant to substitute a cheaper and inferior quality of labor, and thereby reduce its output and lower the standard quality of its goods; but proof of the latter should be confined to the general facts, and not descend into particulars, as to how many hands would leave, nor should it extend to an estimate of depreciation in value, based upon a capitalization of pay rolls, which will, as alleged, be incurred by the evil effects of the right of way and the trains upon the employees and their families. This would enter too much into the forbidden domain of conjecture and speculation, *217 even if considered only as bearing upon the question of depreciation alone, or as being an independent element for the assessment of damages. It would be impossible to do more than guess as to how many hands would quit the service, or to what extent the latter would be disorganized, and a definite opinion upon such matters, dealing with the actual figures in the final estimate, would be unsatisfactory, misleading, and dangerous as the basis for fixing the total amount of damage to the plant. Questions may be asked on cross-examination, for the purpose of listing the value of a witness testimony which are not permissible on examination in chief by the party calling him. To be sure, even on direct examination he may give the reasons for his opinion, provided those reasons are kept within proper and competent limits, as fixed by the established rules of evidence. An improper reason does not necessarily render the opinion of the witness incompetent, as the opinion may be valid and valuable without it, resting, as it may, upon other sufficient and admissible grounds. The party objecting to any of a witness's reasons which are deemed to be incompetent may ask that they be stricken out and that the jury be instructed not to consider them.
The jury, in finding the amount of depreciation in value of the plant by the location of the right of way and the operation of trains thereon, would naturally adopt neither the opinions of men who are sanguine in their estimate of value nor of those who are overcautious, but of prudent, conservative, and practical men who have knowledge and also have had experience and an opportunity of forming correct opinions and are influenced in their judgment only by careful thought and deliberation. R.R. v. Dudley,
We are inclined to the opinion that some of those who testified as "experts," and perhaps some of the other witnesses, were allowed to go too much into detail and their testimony permitted to take too wide a range, by which the minds of the jurors may have been led astray by collateral and irrelevant matters; but the objections interposed to this *218
class of testimony may be too general for notice. The incompetent parts of a mass of testimony, some of which is competent, should be clearly specified. S. v. Ledford,
Our final conclusion is that, while the petition is disallowed, because there was error, the case will hereafter be tried in accordance with the principles stated in this opinion. The writer thought, when the case was here before, that the land was not the subject of condemnation at all, under our statute, and, therefore, his attention was not specially directed to the other questions we have discussed, and while he concurred in the result, he can well see now, after receiving more light upon the subject, that, because of the importance and intricacy of the questions, the reasons leading up to that result should be stated more fully and with closer reference to the facts, as they appear in the record, for future guidance in the case.
Petition dismissed.
Cited: Bennett v. R. R.,