Williams v. Colonial Pipeline Co.

• Decision Date: 05 November 1964
• Docket Number: No. 22622,22622
• Citation: 220 Ga. 381,139 S.E.2d 308
• Parties: J. H. WILLIAMS v. COLONIAL PIPELINE COMPANY.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

Page 308

139 S.E.2d 308

220 Ga. 381

J. H. WILLIAMS v. COLONIAL PIPELINE COMPANY.

No. 22622.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Nov. 5, 1964.

Syllabus by the Court

Where the question is the value of land, which must be established by opinion evidence, and the evidence is highly conflicting, it is error to say that the exclusion of testimony of a witness on that issue was harmless error because the opinion excluded was within the range of valuations given by four other witnesses.

This case is here on grant of certiorari to the Court of Appeals, 109 Ga.App. 815, 137 S.E.2d 667. The question presented is whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the exclusion of testimony of a witness giving his opinion as to the value of land taken in a condemnation proceeding and as to consequential damages to the condemnee's remaining property, was not error such as would require the granting of a new trial.

Merritt & Pruitt, Glyndon C. Pruitt, Buford, for plaintiff in error.

Webb & Fowler, Lawrenceville, for defendant in error.

MOBLEY, Justice.

1. The Court of Appeals, assuming without deciding that the testimony was admissible, held that the court did not commit harmful error in excluding it 'for the reason that the condemnee presented four other witnesses who testified as to their opinions of the condemnee's damages, and the opinion excluded was within the range of the valuations placed on the property by these four witnesses.'

The Court of Appeals in support of its ruling cited Eberhardt v. Bennett, 163 Ga. 796, 803, 137 S.E. 64; Southern Ry. Co. v. Garner, 101 Ga.App. 371, 114 S.E.2d 211; Turner v. State, 43 Ga.App. 799, 813, 160 S.E. 509; Hunt v. Williams, 104 Ga.App. 442, 445, 122 S.E.2d 149. However, the only case of this court cited, Eberhardt v. Bennett, supra, and the case of Hunt v. Williams, supra, are not authority for their ruling for in each of these cases the court held it was not reversible error to exclude testimony of a witness, when that same witness was later permitted to give the same or even stronger testimony than that excluded. That is a well settled principle of law, Southern Railway Co. v. Ward, 131 Ga. 21(4), 61 S.E. 913; Eberhardt v. Bennett, 163 Ga. 796(2), 137 S.E. 64. However, that is quite different from holding that it is not error to exclude testimony of a witness as to value, because other witnesses gave testimony substantially the same as that excluded, for in the first instance the testimony of the witness is in evidence even though at first excluded, and the exclusion could not possibly be harmful. In the second instance, which we have here, the jury might not believe the testimony of the witnesses who testified, but because of confidence in his judgment or for any reason satisfactory to them, they might have believed the testimony of the witness whose testimony was excluded, had he been permitted to testify.

Furthermore, the jury in determining where the preponderance of the evidence lies may consider the number of witnesses, though the preponderance is not necessarily with the greater number. Code § 38-107. Thus they might have in this case decided that the...