Citations
- 6 Ohio App. 2d 6
Full opinion text
Middleton-, J.
This case is in this court bn appeal from a judgment entered upon the verdict of a jury in favor of the landowners for the appropriation of an easement for highway-purposes of certain land owned by Harry C. William's et al. The Director of Highways deposited in the court the amount he had fixed for the value of the property appropriated in fte-§gjia ⅝? $3,350 and as damages to the residue in the amount-'of $1⅝500,*<⅝ a total deposit-of $18,850. The landowners appealed from, this finding by the director, and, upon trial, the jury returned its verdict awarding the landowners $3,500 as compensation for land taken, $23,000 as damages to the residue, and $1,590 for interest; or a total sum of $28,090. The landowners for their assignment of errors set forth the following claims, to wit:
“1. The verdict and judgment are not sustained by sufficient evidence and are against the manifest weight of the evidence.
“2. The trial court erred in giving special instruction-number 3 at the request of the appellee.
“3. The court erred in giving special instruction number-4 at the request of the appellee.
“4. The court erred in rejecting the testimony of appellants’ witness, Frank H. Eoediger.
“5. Other errors of law manifest on the face of the record.”
In 1956, the landowners erected a motel at the intersection of Bible Eoad and what was then U. S. Eoute 25, north and east of Lima, Ohio, but later known as Interstate 75. Prior to its designation as Interstate 75, Eoute 25 existed as a four-lane divided highway of limited access restricted to county roads such as Bible Eoad. From the time the motel was constructed until an overpass was constructed over Interstate 75, the flow of traffic to the motel was from Interstate 75 through Bible Eoad intersection directly to the motel. The assignments Of errcars complained of will be discussed in their order.
In their assignment of error that the verdict and judgment aire not sustained by sufficient evidence and are against the manifest weight of the evidence, the appellants complain that the verdict is based on testimony of witnesses for the state as to their appraisals of fair market value of the premises as of the date of the take, such appraisals being founded on an erroneous and illegal premise that the landowners had no right of access to U. S. Eoute 25 which was being taken from them in the improvement thereof to meet the standards for, and to become a part of, Interstate Eoute 75.
The testimony of the various witnesses as to fair market yalue of the premises before and after the improvement and as ⅜0 compensation and damages^ yras as follows:
On this evidence the jury rendered a verd&tTKhich^ ignoring interest, amounted to an award- of; $3^500 asvCpmpensaticm for land' taken and $23,000 as damages,?,fpr-&.totaI?io£$26,5004
The state’s appraisers each testified that?hefhadfar first appraisal of the premises and then reappraised!*!^ rection .of the state. State’s witness. Smith- testified!_„ appraised it on the basis that it-.had aceess:frpm Bible¡LEoad,tlHit no compensable access from Route 25, or Lnterstate TS^ that “he was told in this case to appraise this as having no indirect access: to Route 75”; that physically the, property didvhave-Lsnch access; that he “didn’t appraise it as it existed on July SI,j 1964, or before”; that his appraisal was “based upon the»instructions from a legal opinion rendered on December, 1961, to the effect the owner had no compensable or direct or indirect, access from the property to Interstate 75”; and that if that were not ,so, his opinion as «to market value asofthe dateofthe-take would be higher. State’s appraiser Hotter: testified that hew83' instructed by “the Department of Highways ^'•'^ that toterewas no compensable right of access,” and,.if-tbere had been, his opinion would .have been higher. Neithersof the state’s appraisers was to. testify as to the amount-wfiiehdte had reached in his first-appraisals, or asdothe “higher” amount which the property wouid'have been worth as:of the date of the