Young v. Arkansas State Highway Commission, 5--4219

• Decision Date: 01 May 1967
• Docket Number: No. 5--4219,5--4219
• Citation: 414 S.W.2d 87,242 Ark. 471
• Parties: Herman B. YOUNG v. ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 87

414 S.W.2d 87

242 Ark. 471

Herman B. YOUNG v. ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION.

No. 5--4219.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

May 1, 1967.

Harold Sharpe, Forrest City, and Spitzberg, Bonner, Mitchell & Hays, by John P. Gill, Little Rock, for appellant.

John R. Thompson, by Robert H. Hall, Lttle Rock, for appellee.

BROWN, Justice.

This is an eminent domain case. Arkansas State Highway Commission sued to take 0.33 acres from appellant Young's tract of 14.7 acres. The jury awarded the property owner $2500.00, which he considered inadequate. Appellant relies on two points for reversal, namely, inadequacy of the verdict, and the trial court's refusal to give a separate instruction explaining the right of the property owner to testify as to fair market value. These points will be listed and discussed in that order.

1. The verdict is inadequate and is not supported by substantial evidence. An expert witness and the landowner testified as to values. The highway department offered no testimony. The expert witness fixed just compensation at $8,140.00. The landowner estimated his damage to be between ten and twenty thousand dollars. These being the only 'before and after' figures introduced, it is the landowner's contention that an award should have been made within the bounds of the proffered figures. This contention must be rejected upon the basis of our holding in Ark. State Highway Comm. V. Schanbeck, 240 Ark. 277, 398 S.W.2d 897 (1966). There the trial court instructed the jury to return a verdict within the limits of the value witnesses. This instruction was held to be in error in view of the right of the jury 'to exercise its own independent thinking and judgment in translating the testimony into a finding of fact.'

We are asked to declare the verdict inadequate. In Hales & Hunter Co. v. Wyatt, 239 Ark. 19, 386 S.W.2d 704 (1965), this court said:

'Neither can it be said that the jury verdict of $2,500.00 instead of the $7,598.14 sought is so inconsistent with the pleadings and proof that the verdict is subject to appellant's motion for judgment non obstante veredicto. We have held that where the jury renders a verdict based upon substantial evidence for more than a nominal amount, although inconsistent with either theory of the case, then the trial court does not have authority to award a larger sum than that determined by the jury. Fulbright v. Phipps, 176 Ark. 356, 3 S.W.2d 49.'

The verdict is based on substantial evidence. Young bought the 14.7 acres on February 20, 1963, for $1200.00 an acre. Within a few days he learned that the highway department was slicing off practically all the frontage on State Highway No. 1. This was necessary to make a proper approach to the new interstate highway, which crossed Highway No. 1. When this information reached Young, he immediately sold the 14.7 acres (less the taking) to Transportation Industries, Inc. for $1200.00 an acre. (In turn, Transportation obtained an easement for an access road to its property.) The 0.33 acres taken was valued at $660.00. The jury might well have determined Young's only damage to have been $660.00 since he sold his remainder at the same acreage rate for which he purchased it. Young testified that before the taking he had in mind erecting a motel. Yet there was no testimony which showed the property to be considered feasible for such a business.

At the time Young bought this acreage it was generally known that Interstate 40 would overpass State Highway No. 1 at this juncture. There an elaborate interchange was planned. Therefore, as of the date of Young's deed,...