Background Image
Previous Page  17 / 41 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 17 / 41 Next Page
Page Background

17

wife rather than market value.

2

The Supreme Court observed that trespass damages are based upon the property’s change in market

value attributed to the trespass.

3

The court held Craig’s testimony about intrinsic value provided no evidence

to support damages under a market value standard. Because this personal or intrinsic value was not relevant

to market value or to an issue in the case, the Court held the jury’s damage award was not supported by the

evidence.

4

The Court remanded the case for a new trial.

Porras

holds that when market value is a fact issue, the property owner’s valuation testimony must address

market value, not some other subjective valuation definition. Importantly,

Porras

and its progeny established

the predicate for parties giving valuation testimony under the rule — such witnesses must affirm their

familiarity with the subject property’s market value.

5

Once the witness meets this minimum requirement, the

amount of detail and support went to the testimony’s weight and not admissibility.

Justiss:

The Property Owner Rule Meets Rule 702

In

Justiss

, several homeowners brought a nuisance suit against a gas plant operator. The Supreme Court

agreed the evidence supported the jury’s finding that the gas plant created a nuisance and then turned its

attention to damages. The plaintiffs provided their own valuation testimony under the Property Owner Rule

to support their respective damage claims.

Citing

Porras

, the Court affirmed that property owner valuation testimonymust “meet the same requirements

as any other opinion evidence.”

6

The

Court observed that since

Porras

, however, the Court has further

developed the requirements a Rule 702 expert’s testimony must meet before the opinions and conclusions

offered can support a judgment.

7

In

Coastal Transp. Co. v. Crown Cent. Petroleum Corp.,

8

the Court held

it is the “basis of the [expert] witness’s opinion and not his qualifications or bare opinions alone that can

settle an issue as a matter of law.”

9

Coastal

and the cases that followed require experts provide more than

“credentials and a subjective opinion”

0

to meet the Rule 702 relevance and reliability requirements.

1