ROADWAY EXPRESS, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
DADE COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In this eminent domain case, Roadway Express appeals a jury verdict awarding compensation for property taken by Dade County but denying business damages. The court affirmed the award, holding that the jury verdict was supported by substantial competent evidence and that the denial of a new trial motion was proper despite allegedly improper remarks by county counsel.
The court affirmed the jury's compensation award, holding that each element of damages was supported by substantial competent evidence and fell within the range of expert testimony presented. The court also affirmed the denial of the motion for a new trial, finding no fundamental error despite the improper remarks, as the verdict was supported by evidence and showed no signs of being induced by passion or prejudice.
[1] A jury's determination of compensation in an eminent domain case is committed to its final determination, not to an expert.
[2] When conflicting expert testimony is presented in a condemnation proceeding, the jury evaluates, interprets, and weighs the credibility of expert witnesses.
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Compensation in an eminent domain case is committed for final determination to the jury, not to an expert.”
Establishes that jury, not experts, has final authority to determine compensation amount in condemnation cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDade County initiated a condemnation proceeding against Roadway Express to take property and improvements. The jury awarded $132,454 for the value of …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Compensation For Taking cases and more on FLexlaw
M. IGNATIUS LESTER, Associate Judge.
Appellant, Roadway Express Inc., the defendant in a condemnation proceeding initiated by appellee, Dade County, appeals the denial of its motion for a new trial and the entry of a final judgment pursuant to a jury verdict which awarded appellant compensation for land and improvements taken, severance damages to the remainder, and moving costs, but no business damages.
COUNTY ROADWAY JURY
Value of Property and improvements taken $113,485 $ 159,683 $132,454
Severance Damages including cost to cure $140,815 $ 780,910 $184,286
Less Special Benefits Moving Costs Business Damages ($ 77,300) $ 16,779 $ 0 $ 0 $ 16,779 $ 449,628 ($ 25,000) $ 16,779 $ 0
Totals $193,779 $1,407,000 $308,519
Compensation in an eminent domain case is committed for final determination to the jury, not to an expert. Behm v. Division of Admin., Dep’t of Transp., 336 So. 2d 579, 582 (Fla.1976). When conflicting expert testimony is presented, the role of the jury is to evaluate, interpret and weigh the credibility of the expert witnesses. In resolving conflicting testimony and determining its reasonableness, the jury may also apply their own knowledge, experience, any information obtained in viewing the property, and any other evidence presented in the case. Behm. The resulting jury verdict must be supported by the evidence.
After careful consideration of the record, briefs and oral arguments, we conclude that the amount of compensation awarded by the jury as to each element of damages was supported by substantial competent evidence and fell within the range of expert testimony presented at trial. Reversible error not having been demonstrated, we affirm the entire compensation award.
A second point appellant raises concerns admittedly improper remarks made by the county’s attorney during closing argument. Counsel for Roadway Express failed to make a timely objection, but rather waited until the jury had retired to deliberate to move for a mistrial. The motion was denied. Absent a timely and proper objection, for whatever reason, White Constr. Co. v. DuPont, 455 So. 2d 1026 (Fla.1984); Nelson v. Reliance Ins. Co., 368 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); American Express Co. v. Juhasz, 281 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973), reversal may be had only if the comments were so prejudicial as to amount to fundamental error. Having examined the record, we find no fundamental error occurred. The verdict was supported by the evidence and does not appear to have been induced by passion or prejudice. Sharp v. Lewis, 367 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). The trial court correctly denied appellant’s motion for a new trial. Accordingly, the final judgment entered pursuant to the jury verdict is affirmed.
The expert witnesses who testified for each side advanced divergent methods of calculating compensation in a partial taking case such as this one. The following is a summary of the appraisal testimony and the jury verdict returned in this case:
AFFIRMED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Weggies Banana Boat, 576 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…re of lost profits attributable to the reduced profit-making capacity of the business.” Mulkey, 448 So. 2d at 1066. The jury’s zero verdict is within the range of the expert’s testimony and cannot be set aside. Roadway Express, Inc. v. Dade County, 537 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Stewart v. Alachua County, 320 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). From our review of the record in its totality, we are convinced that the trial court merely reweighed the evidence and attached a different value to it as if it were s…
-
Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Est. OF Pedro Castano, 544 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…nse, Gale v. State, 483 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 492 So. 2d 1332 (Fla.1986), were not preserved for review by a timely and proper objection, White Constr. Co. v. DuPont, 455 So. 2d 1026 (Fla.1984); Roadway Express, Inc. v. Dade County, 537 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), and were not so fundamental as to amount to a denial of due process, Pope v. Wainwright, 496 So. 2d 798 (Fla.1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 951, 107 S.Ct. 1617, 94 L.Ed.2d 801 (1987). The incensed trial judge considered declaring…
Authorities Cited
- White Constr. Co., Inc. v. Dupont, 455 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 1984)
- Maynard Nelson and Myrtle Nelson v. Reliance Ins. Co., 368 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Behm v. Division OF Administration, 336 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 1976)
- Sharp v. Lewis, 367 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Am. Express Co. v. Nandor Juhasz, 281 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)