Duke Power Co. v. Opperman, 20161
| Decision Date | 29 January 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 20161,20161 |
| Citation | 266 S.C. 99,221 S.E.2d 782 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | DUKE POWER COMPANY, Appellant, v. Manila C. OPPERMAN, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of C. W. Opperman, Respondent. |
Miley & Macaulay, Walhalla, and Fedder & Derrick, Seneca, for appellant.
G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Anderson, for respondent.
This condemnation proceeding was tried before a jury in Oconee County, for the purpose of determining the amount of just compensation to which the landowner, Opperman, was entitled by reason of a taking of land for public use by Duke Power Company. The jury returned a verdict in the amount of $42,000.00. Duck Power Company has appealed.
Duke submits that a new trial should be held and files nine exceptions raising three questions, which we copy from the brief of counsel.
Duke first suggests error on the part of the trial judge as follows:
'Did the Trial Judge err in permitting, over objection, the Landowner's Appraiser, who sought to prove directly his values by comparable sales and his own personal experience, to give his estimate of damages resulting from the acquisition when he was unable to give any rational basis for such an exaggerated evaluation?
The argument of appellate counsel, in written brief and oral statement before the Court, is largely directed at the quality of the expert testimony rather than its admissibility. John Brock, who testified for the landowner, is a licensed real estate broker with eight years experience in real estate appraisal work. He was definitely qualified to testify, and if he could give no rational basis for his testimony, as contended by the appellant, it was a marrer for the jury to consider. We connot say that his testimony should have been stricken and, accordingly, the exceptions addressing themselves to this question are without merit.
Next, appellant questions:
Did the Trial Judge err in denying Duke's motion for a mistrial and in failing to properly protect the rights of Duke against the arguments of Counsel for Landowner which exceeded the bounds of proper argument?
In the case of Crocker v. Weathers, 240 S.C. 412, 126 S.E.2d 335 (1962), this Court indicated the method by which objections to argument of counsel could be preserved for review by this Court. In this case, the record has not been preserved and the appellant has failed to carry the burden of proving error warranting a new trial.
Thirdly, the appellant asks:
Did the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thomas Sand Co. v. Colonial Pipeline Co.
...439, 385 S.E.2d 820 (1989) ("An expert is given wide latitude in determining the basis of his testimony."); Duke Power Co. v. Opperman, 266 S.C. 99, 102, 221 S.E.2d 782, 783 (1976) ("He was definitely qualified to testify, and if he could give no rational basis for his testimony, as contend......
-
City of North Charleston v. Claxton
...for his opinion on value is ordinarily a question of weight for the jury, not a basis for excluding the evidence. Duke Power Co. v. Opperman, 266 S.C. 99, 221 S.E.2d 782 (1976). Thus, on these facts, where the expert's opinion was based on comparables, whether or not the comparable properti......
-
Lane v. Trenholm Bldg. Co.
...to the quality of the expert testimony and go to the weight rather than the admissibility of the testimony. Duke Power Company v. Opperman, 266 S.C. 99, 221 S.E.2d 782 (1976). All other exceptions are without AFFIRMED. LEWIS, C.J., and LITTLEJOHN, RHODES and GREGORY, JJ., concur. 1 Trenholm......