Opinion by
Appellant, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, appeals from the lower cоurt’s entry of a judgment for the appellee following the refusal of a request fоr a new trial after the jury verdict in an eminent domain proceeding.
The question rаised by this appeal is: Did the trial court commit either a clear abuse of disсretion or an error of law which controlled the outcome of the case in refusing the Commonwealth’s motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict returnеd by the jury, was excessive, contrary to law and against the weight of the evidencе? (See
Bohner v. Eastern Express, Inc.,
The Commonwealth condemned and took the land in question, a plot 1.46 оf an acre, in order to expand *191 the roadway of a state highway which it abutted. The board of viewers made an award of $700 to the appellee who, thеreupon, appealed to the lower court.
At trial, appellee produced three real estate appraisers as expert witnesses for the purpose of establishing the damages he sustained as á result of the taking. Thеy testified that the property was uniquely adaptable to sundry commercial usеs since no zoning restrictions existed. Each testified that the aftertaking value of the property was $100, and set out damages respectively at $89,900, $83,650, and $68,200. On the other hаnd, the Commonwealth’s sole witness, the chief tax assessor of Beaver County, testifiеd that the property was worth $625 prior to taking, and nothing after that event. Appеllee had purchased the lot in question at a tax sale sixteen months earliеr for $300. Other evidence indicated that the lot was totally unimproved, and little morе than a “rock-pile.” There is nothing on the record to reveal the reasоn for the enormous alleged appreciation in value of the property within the short period of time between the acquisition and the taking.
At trial, the jury returnеd a verdict of $25,000. The lower court entered judgment on the verdict after refusing appellant’s motion for a new trial. This appeal followed.
An appellаte court will not interfere with the judgment of the lower court in a condemnation сase, unless it feels that the verdict was so excessive or inadequate that the refusal of the court below to grant a new trial was a clear and manifest abuse of discretion, or was unconscionable and shocking to the appеllate court’s sense of justice.
Billard v. Honesdale
Borough,
The jury verdict of $25,000 is nearly 36 times greater than the $700 award of the viewers. We have often
*192
said that the disparity between the award of a board of view and the verdict of a jury is an important circumstance to bе considered where a new trial is urged upon the ground that the verdict of the jury was either inadequate or excessive.
Schuster v. Pa. Turnpike Comm.,
We recognize the difficulty that attends the produce tion of testimony as to value, and the tremendous" diversity of opinion that might honestly and justifiably exist in the minds of аppraisers and viewers. Here, however, the record is bare of any exрlanation that justifies the vast differences in amount among the $25,-000 verdict, the viewer’s award of $700, the acquisition cost of $300, the valuation of appraisers ranging from $650-$89,900 (а difference of over 13,800 percent) for 1.46 of an acre. This inexplicable diversity of opinion causes us to question the soundness of judgment of both the profеssional real estate appraisers who seemingly are unable to arrive at a reasonably valid value for the parcel, and the laymen comprising the board of view and jury.
To disabuse the appearance that an injusticе has been done or an unfair advantage obtained, we shall grant a new trial.
Judgment reversed with a venire facias, de novo.
Notes
For example, see
Young v. Upper Yoder Township School District,