*1 al., Appellees, William et SONNTAG COMPANY,
IOWA PUBLIC SERVICE Corporation, Appellant.
Supreme Court Iowa. Davis, Sifford,
Geo. F. Wadden & Dаvis, City, appellant. Sioux Carroll, Green, David E. for appellees. STUART, Justice.
In this appeal, condemnation the trial awarded for an eаse- ment to high-voltage, erect maintain a transmission line one side of their farm. appealed Defendant has the judgment contending enterеd thereon (1) the award was excessive under the evi- dence, (2) failing the court erred in allegation strike the that the electric trans- mission created a hazard and farming operations.
125 in the verdict of their interest to derived tabular com- $8372 Plaintiffs parison Katie will of of the two cases follows: farm in Joest miles north and limits. chased of the farm. parallel to the line. ran for a transmission west. On farm was for a substation telephone linе 16 dential or area for evidence the farm allegations to that 156 acre Except for along best deceased four land located Defendant use farm is piling adjacent Across the the east commercial is north who owned An REA transmission property was agricultural. of rocks and buildings, east of the line in the all ato edge effect to 20 was valuable side of one and previously acquired an easement tillable. аlong road to county of the development southwest were this feet lots the farm. three-quarters the south There was another Carroll quarter rоad road was refuse, the Its stricken. above had highest a small corner high- west resi- pur- sec- side line city no a Area Owner's Area involved Width Verdict Cоndemnor's Acres involved Length Number of structures the instant case. Unless the evidence of Damages damages in other respects Decreаse in value lating to the difficulties and inconvenience favorable to the condemnee than those in result. Stortenbecker would seem to control the would show perpetual figures loss of income. in farm The statistics in Stortenbecker were more farming per acre of of еasement damage figures allowed structure easement around the evidence in the two cases re- per acre Stortenbecker 7 $20,830 acre 598 3389 feet $11,960 to Vb 7.7 acres $2000 $8372 $14 100 feet $1725 structures was to V4 is + to stronger Vis Vmth ¾8 n $47 156 $7800 [2] 2083 feet 2.59 acres $27,300 $15,600 59 feet $7332 $780 $1170 $21,400 to th here, quite acre case + similar. for the сon- an easement took Defendant of an struction, operation maintenance Plaintiffs seek to distinguish this case the west transmission They Stortеnbecker. call our atten- containing farm 59 feet wide side of the tion to the difference in the size of the structures
approximately Two 2.59 acres. farms but do not why larger state award to apart were erected 700 feet for the smaller farm justified. would be of two Each structure cоnsisted road. Ordinarily, as in the con- road, poles. pole was set next to One demnees believe it advantage to an plain- into located feet second was 15½ largest possible number of acres three tiffs’ The structures carried field. included in subject to con- the in- power prоtect lines lines and two power lines lightning. The stallations from approximately sagged to 32 Appellee also out the points can- of an ground. About two-tenths of the land condemned here almost structures. because of the not be cultivated twice as as valuable the land Stortеn- subject easement remaining land to the becker. The amount of land lost for actual can be farmed. farming operations is it so small little de- heavily upon our Appellant I. relies taken, consequence. the land had been Power cision in Iowa Stortenbecker acre value land would assume 1073, (1959), Light Company 250 Iowa importance. important more when less 468, 473-474, claiming N.W.2d 96 it to the after value relates before and alsо This case was excessive. award subject the farm and the land the ease principles of law which sets forth the may ment still be farmed. type of govern this issue. Under a similar no reference in Stortenbecker we conditioned our affirmance easement to a city the farm distancе from upon a remittitur supported by There was evidence here that fairness are not evi- all town. any justice. farm had extra value for commer- dence and do not render this substantial purposes clearly cial because of its The or residential award was excessive. value of a farm location. The extra close seeks Defendant-appellant either to a town is reflected acre value in the or a substantial reduction *3 set out above. We by amount of the verdict this court. therefore the court on the con- affirm there was no con In Stortenbecker dition file a remittitur that difficulty of given sideration the aerial judgment to the by crops spraying of caused transmis so, they re- fail the cаse will be to do sides of this sion line. Three farm were in ac- versed and remanded for new trial by highlines prior to the con surrounded cordance hеrewith. The effect condemna place highline plain was to Affirmed on condition. tiff’s instead across the road and height raise the the obstruction and LARSON, LeGRAND, REES telephone from a 16 to 20 feet line located UHLENHOPP, JJ., concur. to the farm. increased diffi in factor culty spraying is a which the jury assеssing MOORE, BECKER,
could consider in damages. J., and C. MASON RAWLINGS, JJ., and dissent. danger There evidence of in was work- ing around and poles under the lines. It pointed was out that cоmbines with BECKER, cabs Justice. might and radio extend 22 aerials in I respectfully dissent. testimony air. The uncontradicted point lowest the wires was 31 An of the record examination reveals feet 10 inches plaintiffs’ square- damages evidence
ly computation based on for of such the rule evidence was livestock has court, e., the damages to in this adhered i. by highlines been killed fallen that a in of the farm before difference the value person by static electricity could be shocked taking. the taking and the value after occasionally up which builds Five and their witnesses testified jury lines. сould We hold consider $100, $100, $60, testimony was loss value affecting these factors hazards as Two witnesses testified evidence, after farm. value of the The defendant. acre loss in Their value however, shows the to livestock was testimony as- jury’s was $7.50. unlikely injury so from static elec sessment of loss of vаlue acre was $47. tricity so inconsequential, that these factors question The ultimate here is not how very large would not support a award оf lost, many are or how hard it is damages. cultivate under around the lines and poles, or how inconvenient the addition of by jury award made was this transmissiоn line makes the use of well within damages range testified property. The basic is how much by witnesses, expert but unless we procedure did this condemnаtion affect the wish to depart principles relied on fair market of the farm as a whole. in requiring remittitur we cannot affirm the award made hеre. assessed local well knowledge common that utility com within the limits of outer the evidence. panies are not popular defendаnts. The There well good, qualified, expert courts duty to set opinion aside awards sustain assessment of the made overly generous juries figure which in higher. chosen even I see for the judgment our to substitute reason the witnesses expertise of
combined should verdict jury. local
sustained.
MOORE, and RAW- J.,C. and MASON
LINGS, TT-, join this dissent.
Sharon ENGELSON, Appellee, M.
Robert MALLEA, Appellant.
Supreme Court of Iowa.