Arkansas-Missouri Power Co. v. Sain, ARKANSAS-MISSOURI

• Decision Date: 17 October 1977
• Docket Number: ARKANSAS-MISSOURI,No. 77-141,No. 1,77-141,1
• Citation: Arkansas-Missouri Power Co. v. Sain, 556 S.W.2d 441, 262 Ark. 326 (Ark. 1977)
• Parties: POWER COMPANY, Appellant, v. John Franklin SAIN III, Sharyl Sain Davis, Randy Kendal Sain, Rhonda SainJones, and Doris M. Smith, Appellees
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 441

556 S.W.2d 441

262 Ark. 326

ARKANSAS-MISSOURI POWER COMPANY, Appellant, v. John Franklin SAIN III, Sharyl Sain Davis, Randy Kendal Sain, Rhonda SainJones, and Doris M. Smith, Appellees.

No. 77-141.

Supreme Court of Arkansas, Division No. 1.

Oct. 17, 1977.

Ponder & Lingo, Walnut Ridge, for appellant.

Penix, Zolper & Mixon, Jonesboro, for appellees.

HICKMAN, Justice.

This is the appeal of a right of way condemnation case from the Lawrence County Circuit Court. The appellant, Arkansas-Missouri Power Company, condemned seven acres through a farm owned by the appellees, John Franklin Sain III, and others, for the purpose of obtaining an easement for a transmission line. A jury trial resulted in a verdict for the appellees for $10,000.00.

The appellant alleges three errors on appeal: the court refused to strike the testimony of the expert witness of the appellees; there was no substantial evidence as to the before and after value of the land; and, the verdict was influenced by improper and unsubstantiated testimony.

The landowner appellees in this case offered three forms of evidence as to the damages to the seven acres: first, one of the landowners testified that the land was worth about $40,000 to $50,000 less with the power line across the farm; second, an expert witness was called and testified that the difference between the value of the farm before and after the condemnation was $27,197.00; and, third, the appellees offered testimony that the transmission lines caused an extra expense for aerial application of fertilizer and poison, and was a disadvantage to farming because of its existence.

The landowner's opinion testimony, as we have said many times, on the value of his property is admissible and competent evidence. Housing Authority of Searcy v. Angel, 239 Ark. 224, 388 S.W.2d 394 (1965).

The expert's opinion testimony, however, was not competent evidence and should have been stricken. The expert on cross-examination admitted that he could not think of a single instance where a transmission line had any effect on the market value of the property. Therefore, his testimony that the damages amounted to some $27,000 did not have a sound and reasonable basis. Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Johns, 236 Ark. 585, 367 S.W.2d 436 (1963).

The landowner appellees called a crop duster who testified that he had used chemicals on this land for two years and that as a result of the transmission lines it cost about $180 to $200 more...