Stevenson v. East Deer Tp.

• Decision Date: 08 November 1954
• Citation: 379 Pa. 103,108 A.2d 815
• Parties: Ralph B. STEVENSON and Fay E. Stevenson v. EAST DEER TOWNSHIP, Appellant.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Page 815

108 A.2d 815

379 Pa. 103

Ralph B. STEVENSON and Fay E. Stevenson v. EAST DEER TOWNSHIP, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Nov. 8, 1954.

Irving Sikov, Pittsburgh, for appellant.

Clyde A. Armstrong, Thorp, Reed & Armstrong, Pittsburgh, for appellees.

Before STERN, C. J., and STEARNE, JONES, CHIDSEY, MUSMANNO and ARNOLD, JJ.

HORACE STERN, Chief Justice.

The only questions raised by appellant in these condemnation proceedings relate (1) to the competency of two of plaintiffs' witnesses to testify to the value of the property and (2) to the introduction of certain evidence concerning the effect of the taking on the future profitable use of the property as an industrial plant.

Plaintiffs were the owners of a 1.65-acre tract of land in the Township of East Deer, Allegheny County, on which were constructed a small office building and a brick-making plant. The Township relocated and widened a public road and for that purpose took .302 acres of plaintiffs' land together with the office building, a dynamite shed, an oil shed and a gasoline pump and tank. Plaintiffs having appealed from an award of the Board of Viewers on the ground that it was inadequate, a jury in the Court of Common Pleas found a verdict in their favor in the amount of $18,833.33 plus interest. From the judgment rendered on that verdict the defendant Township now appeals to this court.

A witness for plaintiffs, one Edward Milliken, testified to the value of the property but defendant contends that he was not qualified to express an opinion because he had not sufficiently inspected the property at the time of the condemnation. He testified that he was plant manager for a brick company which operated three plants, that he had been in the brick business for 28 years, that he had appraised other brick plants, that he had known plaintiffs' brickyard for approximately 18 to 20 years, and that he was familiar with the result of the condemnation. Defendant did not preliminarily cross-examine him as to his qualifications but subsequently brought out the fact that he had not visited plaintiffs' property for several years nor until about two weeks before the trial; on that occasion, however, he made a thorough inspection of the property and its equipment. The court refused defendant's motion to strike out his testimony. It is true, of course, that in order for a witness to be qualified to testify as to the value of a property he should have a reasonable familiarity with it, the uses to which it might be applied, and the extent and condition of its improvements and productive qualities. Pittsburgh, Virginia & Charleston Ry. Co. v. Vance, 115 Pa. 325, 332, 8 A. 764, 766, 767; Michael v. Crescent Pipe Line Co., 159 Pa. 99, 104, 28 A. 204, 205; Friday v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 204 Pa. 405, 408, 54 A. 339; Reed v. Pittsburgh, Carnegie & Western R. R. Co., 210 Pa. 211, 213, 59 A. 1067, 1068; Markowitz v. Pittsburgh & Connellsville R. R. Co. (No. 1), 216 Pa. 535, 537, 65 A. 1097, 1098; Hoffman v. Berwind-White Coal Mining Co., 265 Pa. 476, 481, 109 A. 234, 236. But in all such questions of competency there is no fixed or absolute standard; the witness is required to have only such knowledge of the value of the property as could be reasonably expected in the particular case; the standard must not be made so high as to exclude the best evidence available under the circumstances. Lally v. Central Valley R. R. Co., 215 Pa. 436, 64 A. 633; White v. Western Allegheny R. R. Co., 222 Pa. 534, 537, 538, 71 A. 1081, 1082; Appeal of Pennsylvania Company for Insurances on Lives and Granting Annuities, 282 Pa. 69, 75, 127 A. 441, 443; Whitekettle v. New York Underwriters Insurance Co., 293 Pa. 385, 387, 143 A. 129, 130. There must always be borne in mind the distinction between the competency of a witness and the weight to be given to his testimony by the fact-finding tribunal; where, in cases of this nature, the witness has even slight qualifications, permitting him to express an opinion will not be treated as error. Davis, Trustee, v. Southern Surety Co., 302 Pa. 21, 26, 153 A. 119, 121; Lutz v. Allegheny County, 327 Pa. 587, 590, 195 A. 1, 2; Hencken v. Bethlehem Municipal Water Authority, 364 Pa. 408, 412, 72 A.2d 264, 266. Moreover, it is a question for the discretion of the trial judge whether a witness has shown...