Supreme Court

Decision Information

Decision Content

462 ARK. STATE HIGHWAY COMM. V. CROMER [942 ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION V. ROY CROMER ET UX 5-4180 414 S. W. 2d 90 Opinion delivered May 1, 1967 1. EVIDENCE ExAMINATION OF EXPERTSFACTS FORMING BASIS OF OPINION.—An expert witness may state his opinion without first giving the facts upon which it is based. 2_ EMINENT DOMAINVALUE OF PROPERTYLANDOWNER'S TESTIMONY, ADMISSIBILITY OF.—Landowner's testimony should not be stricken simply because he admits on cross-examination he has taken an inadmissible fact into account in reaching his conclusion about the value of his land. 3_ EMINENT DOMAIN VALUE OF PROPERTYEXPERT'S OPINION, ADMISSIBILITY onExperts' reliance upon inflated selling prices which led them to an ultimate erroneous opinion for purposes of condemnation because it included an element of value not properly a part of just compensation was inadmissible as being wrong and misleading to , the jury. Appeal from Crawford Circuit Court, Carl K. Creekmore, Judge ; reversed. George 0. Green and Don, Langston, for appellant. Ralph W. Robinson, for appellee. GEORGE ROSE SMITH, Justice. This condemnation suit involves a tract of land near the tract that was taken in what now appears to have been essentially a companion case : Arkansas State Highway Commn. v. Griffin, 241 Ark. 1033, 411 S. W. 2c1 495 (1967). There we
ARK.] ARK. STATE HIGHWAY Comm. V. CROMER 463 held that the trial court erred in permitting the landowners to prove an enhancement in value that was the result of the proposed improvement, the ,construction of Interstate Highway 40. That same proof was made in the case at bar ; so this judgment must also be reversed. Counsel seek to distinguish the Griffin case on the ound that there the landowners' testimony in chief included the prohibited element of valuation, while here the condemnor 's attorney brought the matter out in cross-examining the landowners' expert witnesses, When those witnesses admitted that they had taken such inflated selling prices into consideration in arriving at their estimates of the value of the property being taken, the hi g hway department's attorney made an unsuccessful effort to have those estimates of value excluded from the record. The asserted distinction between'.hat case and this. one is not well taken. An expert witness may state his opinion without first giving the facts upon which it is based. Arkansas Statp Highway Camnin. V. Johitc, 236 Ark. 585, 367 S. W. 2d 436 ( 1963). Hence the appellant's attorney was. compelled to elicit the facts by cross-examination. In this respect the case at hand is to be distingished from Arkansas State Highway Coininn. v. Russell, 240 Ark. 21, 398 S. W. 2d 201 (1966). There we held that a landowner's testimony should not be strieken simply because he admits on cross-examination that he has taken an inadmissible fact ( such as an offer to purchase) into acount in reaching his conclusion about the value of his land. Here, by contrast, the experts' reliance upon inflated selling prices led them to an ultimate opinion that was actually erroneous for the purposes of condemnation, because it included an element of value not properly a part of just compensation. Hence the opinion should not have reached the jury's ears, not because it was technically inadmissible but because it was wrong and consequently misleading to the jury. Reversed.
 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.