Nc Dept. of Transp. v. Haywood County, 628PA04.

Citation626 S.E.2d 645
Decision Date03 March 2006
Docket NumberNo. 628PA04.,628PA04.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
PartiesNORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION v. HAYWOOD COUNTY.

Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Martin T. McCracken, Assistant Attorney General, for plaintiff-appellant.

Jeffrey W. Norris & Associates, P.L.L.C., by Jeffrey W. Norris, Waynesville, for defendant-appellee.

EDMUNDS, Justice.

In this land condemnation case, we must decide whether the trial court abused its discretion when it allowed plaintiff's motion for a directed verdict as to defendant's purported expert testimony regarding certain elements of damage related to the value of the real property at issue. Because we conclude that the trial court reasonably determined that the testimony lacked sufficient reliability, we find no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we reverse the Court of Appeals holding to the contrary.

Plaintiff Department of Transportation made plans to widen U.S. Highway Business 23 in defendant Haywood County. To carry out this plan, plaintiff needed to acquire additional right of way. The Haywood County Planning Building, which houses several county agencies and also provides rental space to various nonprofit organizations, is located on the property affected by the widening. Plaintiff's project would take 2,861 square feet of this 26,060 square foot tract of land. As a result, the Planning Building would lose part of its paved parking lot and the distance between the southeast corner of the Planning Building and the highway would shrink from forty-four feet to as little as two and one-half feet. In addition, plaintiff would also acquire a 1,859 square foot temporary construction easement consisting of a long narrow strip running parallel to the new right of way. This construction easement was set to expire upon completion of the highway expansion project, which at the time of condemnation was expected to take three years.

Plaintiff estimated just compensation for defendant's appropriated property to be $10,125.00. Because defendant did not agree with plaintiff's estimate, condemnation became necessary. Pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 136-103, on 22 January 2001, plaintiff filed a Complaint, Declaration of Taking, and Notice of Deposit. Plaintiff simultaneously deposited $10,125.00 with the Clerk of Haywood County Superior Court.

On 2 June 2003, the case went to trial in Haywood County Superior Court. The only issue before the jury was the amount of compensation to which defendant was entitled. Defendant, who had the burden of proof, presented the testimony of three expert witnesses regarding both the value of damages arising from the proximity of the new right of way to the building ("proximity damage") and the rental value of the temporary construction easement ("rental value"). At the close of defendant's evidence, plaintiff moved for a directed verdict as to portions of the testimony of each of these three witnesses. The trial court granted plaintiff's motion and instructed the jury not to consider defendant's evidence regarding proximity damages and rental value as factors in the damage award.

The jury returned a verdict for defendant in the amount of $21,100.00. Defendant appealed the decision to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, assigning as error the trial court's grant of the directed verdict. On 16 November 2004, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and remanded the case for a new trial. N.C. Dep't of Transp. v. Haywood Cty., 167 N.C.App. 55, 604 S.E.2d 338 (2004). On 18 August 2005, we allowed plaintiff's petition for discretionary review to consider whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court's judgment.

A trial court must decide preliminary questions pertaining to the qualifications of a witness and the admissibility of testimony. N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 104(a) (2005). "[A] trial court's ruling on the qualifications of an expert or the admissibility of an expert's opinion will not be reversed on appeal absent a showing of abuse of discretion." Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd., 358 N.C. 440, 458, 597 S.E.2d 674, 686 (2004). "A ruling committed to a trial court's discretion is to be accorded great deference and will be upset only upon a showing that it was so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision." White v. White, 312 N.C. 770, 777, 324 S.E.2d 829, 833 (1985).

The trial court accepted defendant's tender of three expert witnesses to testify as to land values in Haywood County: Mr. Carroll Mease, Mr. James Deitz, and Mr. Bobby Joe McClure. All three testified that the permanent value of the Planning Building would depreciate because the building would be so close to the widened road. Their opinions of the amount of depreciation ranged...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Crocker v. Roethling
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • 1 Mayo 2009
    ... ... Russell Duke, Jr., in Superior Court, Johnston County". Heard in the Supreme Court 18 March 2008 ...      \xC2" ... DOT v. Haywood Cty., ... 675 S.E.2d 629 ... 360 N.C. 349, 351, 626 ...          N.C. Dep't of Transp. v. Haywood Cty., 360 N.C. 349, 351, 626 S.E.2d 645, 646 ... ...
  • Department of Transp. v. M.M. Fowler, Inc.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • 15 Diciembre 2006
    ... ... Hobgood in Superior Court, Durham County. Heard in the Supreme Court 13 February 2006 ...         Roy ... Richard Moore and E. Burke Haywood", Special Deputy Attorneys General, for plaintiff-appellant ...     \xC2" ... ...
  • Dep't of Transp. v. Adams Outdoor Adver. of Charlotte Ltd.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • 29 Septiembre 2017
    ... ... This lease was recorded in the Mecklenburg County Register of Deeds Office. While the recorded lease was in effect, the City ... v. Haywood County , 360 N.C. 349, 352, 626 S.E.2d 645, 647 (2006). Here, DOT's ... ...
  • Chappell v. N.C. Dep't of Transp.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • 1 Mayo 2020
    ... ... owned the property at issue along Raeford Road in Cumberland County, with no known encroachments adversely impacting the property prior to the ... See Dep't of Transp. v. Haywood Cty., 360 N.C. 349, 35253, 626 S.E.2d 645, 647 (2006) (trial court ... N.C. Dept. of Revenue, 370 N.C. 10, 20, 803 S.E.2d 142, 150 (2017), which was not ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT