HomeMy WebLinkAbout2782 i- ;
~ • i
. access o the property. The Department of Transportation .
appraiser found the value of the property taken was higher than
appellants' expert but his opinion was that there was_no sever-
- ance damage. The jury returned a verdict for $63,900, the value
- of the property taken as testified to by appellants' appraiser, i
Zook. No severance-damages were allowed. f
During the course of closing argument, in commenting
u on Mr. Zook's a raisal testimony, counsel for the Department
P PP ~
of Transportation had this to say:
s
Now, as to Mr. Zook, his credentials are
imposing. He is an impressive witness. And he
gave very fine testimony.
But he.is answering an unrealistic question. He
is answering the question as to what this property -
would be worth--he is answering the question-that
is involved with-the question of the value of the .
property, if you had only the Orange frontage,
Orange Avenue frontage, and the Copenhaver that
goes down around the ~irc3per%y duwai td the hattom.
But our society does not remain stagnant. When a
demand arises a su 1 is created. When a eman
is create ~ t s u e en ou nee a road
a roa comes up an appears. As r. ierney po nted
out none o s compara Ie sales, there is a road
at that--he took pains to point out that there is ~
a road right in here, I believe this was the sale,
that wasn t there when the sale was made. Why?
Because they needed it.
So when ou have a need for roads, as ou would have
or t e su ect ro ert n tea ter con ition, w en
4 ~ - t e nee actiu3 arises t e roa s wi come. - Em-
- pis a~Ic
c~a .
~ Counsel for appellants objected to these remarks but
the trial court overruled the objection. There was-no evidence- -
of any plans for new roads to be built which might-alleviate ap-
pellants' access problems. Thus, counsel's suggestion -that when
appellants needed additional access new roads would be built not
only has no record support but in all probability no support in
reality. We, of course, cannot be certain these remarks misled
the jury. Appellants made a-strong case. for allowance of sever-
f
~ ance damage, however if .the jury believed appellee's counsel,
then they might well be justified in finding no severance damage
i to the remainder of the property because the new roads envisioned
-2-
i
g~oK3~4 P~~E2775