PEOPLE EX. REL. DEPT. PUB. WKS. v. Cowan

1 Cal.App.3d 1001 (1969) 81 Cal. Rptr. 713 THE PEOPLE ex rel. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

FRED COWAN et al., Defendants and Appellants.

Docket No. 32920. Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Five.

October 28, 1969. [1003] COUNSEL

Thorpe, Sullivan, Clinnin & Workman and Henry K. Workman for Defendants and Appellants.

Harry S. Fenton, Joseph A. Montoya, Robert L. Meyer, Richard L. Franck and Charles E. Spencer, Jr., for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

KAUS, P.J. —

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is an appeal by defendants from a judgment granting them a condemnation award of $148,779.61[1] as just compensation for the taking of three parcels of unimproved land located in Los Angeles County. The State of California, plaintiff, sued to condemn the property for freeway purposes. Defendants waived any claim to severance damages just prior to trial, so the only issue in the proceedings was the fair market value of the three parcels as of the date of issuance of summons, June 24, 1965.

Defendants' sole contention on appeal is that the trial court erroneously refused to allow defendants to call as an expert witness a staff appraiser for the State Division of Highways, Mark Linnes. Before the jury was empaneled defendants made an offer of proof with respect to Mr. Linnes. They alleged that he had appraised the property in question in the course of his duties as a staff appraiser, and that the state had relied upon his evaluation in applying for a determination of the amount of the security deposit made pursuant to section 1243.5, subdivision (a), of the Code of Civil Procedure. Defendants stated that they wished to question the appraiser as to his opinion of the value of the parcels as of June 24, 1965, emphasizing that his opinion would be especially probative because (1) he appraised the property in his capacity as plaintiff's staff appraiser; and (2) subsequent evaluations by independent appraisers, hired by the state, were approximately $30,000 less than Mr. Linnes' evaluation. The trial court sustained plaintiff's objection to the offer of proof on the grounds that the evidence was privileged and irrelevant.