Caseflicks

Wisconsin Supreme Court • 1971

Schneider v. State

187 N.W.2d 172 | 51 Wis. 2d 458 | 1971 Wisc. LEXIS 1093

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, a landowner may recover for a partial taking, but not for lost traffic or corner value when highway access changes and reasonable access remains.

Background

The Schneiders owned land beside State Highway 151 and Thompson Road. The state took 3.29 acres to build a frontage road. At the same time, it withdrew their permitted direct access to the highway and closed the Thompson Road intersection. The frontage road provided access to the remaining property.

In the condemnation case, a jury valued the property at $175,000 before the taking and $158,000 afterward, awarding $17,000. The trial court found the verdict excessive and offered the Schneiders a choice: accept a $4,000 reduction or receive a new trial. They chose a new trial and appealed. The state sought review of the court’s refusal to exclude part of the Schneiders’ valuation evidence.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the jury could include loss of commercial value caused by the closed intersection when measuring damages for the partial taking.

Holding

No. Because the frontage road preserved reasonable access, the intersection closure was not a compensable taking, and no credible evidence supported the $17,000 verdict once that loss was excluded.

Reasoning

For a partial taking, compensation is the difference between the whole property’s fair market value immediately before the taking and the remainder’s value immediately afterward. That calculation cannot include losses caused solely by a separate, lawful exercise of the state’s police power.

An abutting owner has a protected right of reasonable access, but not a right to a particular intersection or to the continued flow of traffic. The state closed the intersection as part of its control of highway access, and the adequacy of the frontage road as access was not disputed.

The Schneiders’ expert attributed much of the claimed decline in commercial value to losing the intersection’s corner influence. That loss could not support condemnation damages. Viewing the remaining evidence favorably to the verdict, the Court found no credible support for $17,000 and affirmed the order requiring a remittitur or new trial.

Issue #2

Whether the trial court had to strike the Schneiders’ valuation testimony or direct the jury to subtract $17,500 from their claimed damages.

Holding

No. The court acted within its discretion by admitting the mixed testimony and instructing the jury to disregard damage caused by the intersection closure.

Reasoning

The expert’s $17,500 estimate reflected both the noncompensable loss of corner influence and a change in grade. Although grade was a lesser factor, the estimate could not be treated as entirely attributable to the intersection closure.

When valuation testimony contains both proper and improper elements, a court may leave its weight to the jury after giving an appropriate instruction. The trial court told the jury not to count any decline in value caused by closing the intersection. That instruction was proper, even though the resulting verdict lacked evidentiary support.