Turner v. State Roads Commission

McLaughlin, J., by special assignment, delivered the opinion of the Court. This case is a combined appeal from two judgments of the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, entered on inquisitions of a jury in two condemnation cases which were tried together by stipulation. The owners of the two properties involved, Albert H. Turner and wife, and Albert W. Turner and wife, have appealed from these judgments. Albert H. Turner is the father of Albert W. Turner.

The portions of the 'two properties condemned are located on the opposite sides of Enterprise Road in Prince George’s County. The State Roads Commission desires to reconstruct Enterprise Road and provide for a future interchange to be built at this road to serve U. S. Route 50. The father’s property fronts 336 feet on the east side of Enterprise Road. The roadside strip taking from the father will consist of 3.48 acres.

The Commission plans call for a dual highway on Enterprise Road with two lanes divided in the center by a 16 foot median strip at the area of the interchange. Such plans will require the father, in order to go south from his property, to take a service road for about 200 feet before getting access to Enterprise Road. The Commission proposes a total condemnation of the son’s property on the west side of Enterprise Road of 11.543 acres. The median strip problem is also involved in this taking.

To go south the son will have to proceed north 400 to 500 feet to the nearest break in the median strip and then “U” turn ⁴³¹ south. The taking is in two sections, one for the Washington-Annapolis Expressway (U. S. Route 50) and the other for a strip along Enterprise Road. The son will have denial of access to the new freeway and to Enterprise Road to a point some 75 feet north of his present driveway. The appellants have posed to us three questions as a basis of their appeal which we will answer as presented.

I. Did the lower court commit reversible error by refusing to permit the witness Coates to give a valuation of appellants’ property? To prove the amount of damages to their respective properties, appellants called Walter Addison, whose qualifications as an expert were not challenged, Eloyd R. Coates, who was not permitted to give valuation figures, and both father and son testified as property owners. The witness Coates, a resident of Prince George’s County all his life, had over 20 years experience in the real estate business. He is vice president of a realty firm and holds the same position with a building firm which builds over 300 houses a year.

Coates is also a director of the Prince George’s County Real Estate Board. He is a licensed broker in Maryland, the District of Columbia and Virginia. After a presentation of the above the witness Coates stated he was familiar with properties and values in the vicinity of Enterprise Road and the new Annapolis Freeway. The witness then described a sale he had made to a company known as the District Corporation in April, 1953, of 81 acres located on Palmer Highway about a mile and a half from Enterprise Road.

The appellee objected to the sale as being incomparable but the court held that it was comparable. This property brought approximately $1,500 per acre. The witness next being asked about other comparable property stated he had made many sales in the area of Palmer Highway. These sales had been made before and after the taking which was agreed to as being January, 1955.

Mr. Coates gave no figures for these properties, but cited familiarity with a Peffer ⁴³² property sale. This property had been referred to by Mr. Addison in his testimony and was located 500 to 600 feet south of the father’s house on Enterprise Road. This property of 16 acres with no improvements brought $12,500. Thereafter the witness gave a generalization of his knowledge of properties on Enterprise Road and his familiarity with the Turner’s properties.

He was then asked to give an opinion of the fair value of the Turners’ land immediately prior to the taking. The appellee objected and the court sustained. For its reasons the court stated that only one property (Peffer) sale was comparable although the court had originally held the 81 acre tract sold to the District Corporation to be a comparable sale. The remaining testimony of Mr. Coates dwelt with a sale of property across the road from Mr. Turner, Sr., purchased in 1953, by Frank Halley.

This land sold for $1,000 to $1,500 an acre. Also he referred to a property to the north of the son’s that brought $1,000 an acre in 1953. The appellee’s counsel again objected because no names or dates had been specified. Counsel for appellants stated dates had been given.

All this jousting as to the qualifications of the witness was concluded by this statement of the court: “Mr. Beatty, you know very well that we cannot deal in generalities in permitting a witness to qualify. If he can show that he knows of his own knowledge of the details involved in the sale then I say that he might be qualified, but just to speak in generalities is not proper. He heard of a sale here and heard of a sale there.” The witness was then excused. Appellee insists that the court did not decide the witness could not qualify and the appellants should have proceeded further to qualify the witness.

We do not agree. Counsel had drawn from the witness all information he had of comparable sales and the court reiterated his original opinion that Coates was not qualified. The excusal of the witness at this juncture cannot be considered as an abandonment to qualify him. The question of whether a witness is qualified to give an opinion must be left in a large measure to the sound discretion of the trial court. 32 C. J. S., Evidence, § 458 (b) : Dis ⁴³³ cretion of Court, states: “Whether or not the qualification of a witness to state his opinion is sufficiently established is a matter resting largely in the discretion of the trial court, and its ruling thereon, * * * ordinarily will not be disturbed on appeal ttnless there is a clear showing of abuse.

If the witness has some qualifications, he should be permitted to testify.” The case of Baltimore v. Brick Co., 80 Md. 458, 472 , was the first case in Maryland to enunciate the law that prices realized for sales of similar land in the vicinity of that to be condemned were admissible before a jury trying to ascertain its value. The Court in this case said: “It is generally conceded that the opinions of witnesses having sufficient knowledge on the subject and acquainted with the land in question, are admissible to prove such value; and that the question as to whether a witness is qualified to give an opinion must be left, in a large measure, to the discretion and judgment of the trial Court, but of course that discretion is not without limit. * * * We think, therefore, that the prices realized at sales of the land in question and of similar land in its vicinity, made within a reasonable period of time theretofore, * * * are admissible in evidence * * Since this holding it has long been the custom that before real estate experts can give opinions of land values such witnesses must qualify by showing they have knowledge of comparable sales; that is, they should know what similar land was selling for in the neighborhood before or at the time it was condemned. Knowledge of comparable sales is not the only test of the qualifications of a real estate expert, but is certainly a helpful one in determining competency. Many Maryland cases have repeated the basic rule taken from 2 Jones on Evidence (4th ed.), Sec. 369, namely, “The question as to the competency or qualification of a witness who is tendered as an expert is to be determined preliminarily by the court; nor will the court’s decision be reversed on appeal unless it is shown to have been based upon error of law or to have been the result of an abuse of judicial discretion.” Most of the cases were appeals from the courts’ admission of expert testimony rather than its denial, which indicates that ⁴³⁴ the trial courts have been more liberal than restrained in ruling witnesses competent.

The following are some of the Maryland cases holding expert testimony properly admitted: Balt., Ches. & Atl. Ry. Co. v. Moon, 118 Md. 380 ; Susq. Trans.

Co. v. Murphy, 131 Md. 340 ; Wingert v. Bowie, 147 Md. 610 ; Produce Exchange v. Express Co., 147 Md. 424 ; Automobile Owners’ Ass’n v. State, 154 Md. 204 ; Insurance Company v. Thrall, 181 Md. 19 . Cases where it was held expert testimony was. properly rejected are: Ottenberg v. Ryan & Riley Co., 130 Md. 38 , where the Court held the particular question was not material to the issue and not reversible error; Battisto v. Perkins, 210 Md. 542 , where the Court held the question involved an engineering problem and was out of the field of