531 P.2d 1324 | Mont. | 1975
No. 12745
I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA THE STATE OF MONTANA, ACTING BY AND THROUGH THE STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF MONTANA,
P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t , MARY A. SMITH BELDON, DONALD J. and GERTRUDE SMITH, husband and w i f e , JOAN E. SMITH PENDERGAST, and t h e FEDERAL LAND BANK OF SPOKANE,
Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Second J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable John B. McClernan, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record : For A p p e l l a n t : Daniel J. S u l l i v a n and James D r i s c o l l , Helena, Montana James D r i s c o l l argued, Helena, Montana
For Respondent : C o r e t t e , Smith and Dean, B u t t e , Montana Kendrick Smith argued, B u t t e , Montana
Submitted : January 1 3 , 19 75 Decided : FEB - - 1 9 1cJ7S , ; ? I @ F i l e d : - Mr. J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court .
This i s an appeal by t h e S t a t e Highway Commission from a j u r y v e r d i c t rendered i n a condemnation a c t i o n . The t a k i n g con- s i s t e d of 61.4 a c r e s f o r t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n of a highway and 7.7 a c r e s f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n permits and easements. The condemned land i s included w i t h i n a ranch l o c a t e d a s h o r t d i s t a n c e e a s t of t h e community o f Melrose, Montana. The new i n t e r s t a t e highway c r o s s e s through t h e ranch from n o r t h t o s o u t h f o r a d i s t a n c e of approxi- mately one mile and roughly b i s e c t s t h e ranch. The j u r y awarded compensation i n t h e amount of $97,000 which included $30,000 f o r t h e value of t h e land taken and $67,000 a s d e p r e c i a t i o n t o t h e remainder.
A t t r i a l t h r e e w i t n e s s e s t e s t i f i e d a s t o j u s t compensation f o r t h e landowners and two t e s t i f i e d on b e h a l f of t h e S t a t e . The v a l u a t i o n s placed upon t h e condemned land and t h e damages t o t h e remainder can b e s t be summarized by t h e u s e of t h i s c h a r t :
LANDOWNER'S
WITNESSES Value of Land Taken Depreciation T o t a l 1. DonaldSmith $55,575 2. Ralph P o t t s 52,650 3. Joe Buyan 52,650
STATE'S
WITNESSES 1. R u s s e l l Gasser 2. Robert Shedd 18,000 19,700 *Includes an a d d i t i o n a l amount of $18,800 f o r "cost t o cure". On a p p e a l t h e only e r r o r a l l e g e d by t h e S t a t e concerns In- s t r u c t i o n No. 21 given by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . This i n s t r u c t i o n r e a d s :
I ' You a r e i n s t r u c t e d t h a t you may n o t award compen- s a t i o n i n excess of t h e amount of $137,790.00 which i s t h e h i g h e s t a p p r a i s a l on b e h a l f of t h e defendants; nor may your v e r d i c t be l e s s than t h e sum of $48,800.00, t h e amount of t h e lowest testimony o f f e r e d by t h e S t a t e of Montana i n t h i s m a t t e r . < he burden of proof is upon the defendants to prove they are entitled to an amount greater than $48,800.00, which is the lowest testimony offered by the State in this matter. [11] The issue is whether the district court committed reversible
error necessitating a new trial by placing the sum of $48,800 as the lowest testimony of the State when one of the State's appraisers, Russell Gasser, testified to a figure of $38,200.
The State asserts Instruction No. 21 is erroneous because it removed Russell ~asser's testimony from the jury's consideration and cites in support 75 Am,Jur 2d, Trial, § 655, which states:
"A party is entitled to have the jury consider all the evi.dence properly before them in arriving at their verdict, and an instruction is erroneous if it ignores any material, conflicting, or qualifying evidence which the jury are bound to consider in forming their verdict, or if it withdraws from their considera- tion any evidence, however weak, tending to establish material facts. * * *I1. In determining why the trial court did not use the lowest
figure testified to we set forth the sequence of events that transpired while the instructions were being settled:
"THE COURT: The Court proposes to give Instruction No. 21 tendered by the landowners. "MR. SMITH: May the record show that the landowners submitted Instruction D21 with the blank spaces left blank and has inserted as its offer of the instruction only the higher amount of $137,790.00. The specific objection to which the landowner is now objecting is the insertion of the sum of $38,200.00 where there is testimony by one of the state's own witnesses, Mr. Rohert Shedd, that just compensation should be in the higher amount of $48,800.00 and that it is not fair, proper, legal, equitable or just for the State to seek to get the lowest amount of its lowest witness when it has testimony by another witness for a higher amount of $10,600.00 or more. "THE COURT : Ob j ec tion sustained. ''MR. SULLIVAN: Could we be heard on it for just a minute. I think the lowest testimony of just compen- sation by the Defendants if (sic) approximately One Hundred Twenty-One. "MR. SMITH: One Hundred Twenty-one what? "MR. SULLIVAN: Thousand. Somebody had $121,000.00. "MR. SMITH: That is correct. "MR. SULLIVAN: If that is the case, the same thing would work that way, that this is some $16,000.00 less. "THE COURT: What d i d you s a y , what i s t h e f i g u r e ? "MR, SMITH: $48,800.00. "THE COURT: The Court now proposes t o g i v e I n s t r u c t i o n No. 21 a s amended, "MR. SULLIVAN: We would o b j e c t t o t h i s on t h e grounds and f o r t h e reason t h a t a w i t n e s s f o r t h e Defendant has t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e h i g h e s t j u s t compensation i s $121,000.00. This i s a rounded f i g u r e . That t h i s obviously i s approximately $16,000.00 l e s s than t h e high f i g u r e now being o f f e r e d and t h e r e f o r e s i n c e t h i s i s j u s t compensation a s asked f o r by t h e Defendant, t h e f i g u r e given a s t h e high one should n o t exceed t h e lowest amount t e s t i f i e d t o by t h e Defendants. "THE COURT: Overruled. I I I n t r y i n g t o understand why t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t i n s e r t
t h e lowest f i g u r e t e s t i f i e d t o i t would appear t h a t a s a t r i a l t a c t i c , counsel f o r t h e S t a t e t r i e d t o g e t t h e middle f i g u r e of $121,075 i n t o I n s t r u c t i o n No. 21, r a t h e r than t h e $137,790 f i g u r e and i n s o doing t o lower t h e maximum by some $16,000. He appears t o have been w i l l i n g t o l e t h i s lowest f i g u r e go by t h e board s o a s t o s t r i k e down t h e landowners' h i g h e s t f i g u r e . I f t h i s were h i s t a c t i c , i t d i d n o t work o r i t s o confused t h e t r i a l c o u r t t h a t t h e Gasser testimony was overlooked. It was t h e s t a t e ' s d u t y t o s e e t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t m i s s t h e proper f i g u r e s .
The landowners argue t h e S t a t e i s precluded from contending t h e c o u r t ' s view was erroneous. I n view of t h e apparent confusion t h e time of s e t t l i n g of i n s t r u c t i o n s t h e r e i s no m e r i t t o t h e i r p o s i t i o n . Rule 51, M.R.Civ.P., concerning i n s t r u c t i o n s t o t h e j u r y , s t a t e s i n p a r t :
"* * * Objections made s h a l l s p e c i f y and s t a t e t h e p a r t i c u l a r grounds on which t h e i n s t r u c t i o n i s o b j e c t e d t o and i t s h a l l n o t be s u f f i c i e n t i n s t a t i n g t h e ground of such o b j e c t i o n t o s t a t e g e n e r a l l y t h e i n s t r u c - t i o n does n o t s t a t e t h e law o r i s a g a i n s t t h e law, b u t such ground of o b j e c t i o n s h a l l s p e c i f y p a r t i c u l a r l y wherein t h e i n s t r u c t i o n i s i n s u f f i c i e n t o r does n o t s t a t e t h e law, o r what p a r t i c u l a r c l a u s e t h e r e i n i s o b j e c t e d t o . * * *"* The purpose of Rule 51, M.R.Civ.P., i s t o g i v e t h e d i s t r i c t
c o u r t judge an o p p o r t u n i t y t o c o r r e c t h i s own e r r o r s . This Court has r e p e a t e d l y held t h a t o b j e c t i o n s t o i n s t r u c t i o n s cannot be heard on appeal u n l e s s they were i n i t i a l l y r a i s e d i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t . Seder v. Kiewit s o n s ' Co., 156 Mont. 322, 479 P.2d 448; S a l v a i l v. Great Northern Railway Co., 156 Mont. 1 2 , 473 P.2d 549; Cross v. Trethe-, 155 Mont. 337, 471 P.2d 538.
Here, on a p p e a l , t h e S t a t e a r g u e s t h e i n s t r u c t i o n was erroneous because i t prevented t h e S t a t e from having t h e j u r y con- s i d e r t h e testimony of one of i t s e x p e r t w i t n e s s e s and i t prevented t h e S t a t e from p r e s e n t i n g i t s theory o f t h e c a s e . However, n e i t h e r of t h e s e o b j e c t i o n s was c l e a r l y r a i s e d i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t . Accordingly, we d e c l i n e t o r e v e r s e t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t on an erroneous i n s t r u c t i o n when t h e o b j e c t i o n t o t h a t i n s t r u c t i o n was n o t d i s t i n c t l y s t a t e d .
The judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s affirmed. / / Chief J u s t i c e
I
/ J u s t i c e s .
