Puget Sound Power & Light Co. v. Public Utility Dist. No. 1

(concurring in the opinion of Judge HANEY),

As to Assigned Errors Nos. 9 and

Scudder’s testimony relative to the severance damages to the Company’s Belling-ham office building was stricken by the court upon the ground that Scudder had arrived at the amount of severance damages by an incorrect method, and not in any manner as an expert. The ruling had nothing to do with Scudder’s qualifications as a realtor or as to what might be the custom of realtors as to making evaluations of real estate generally because this stricken testimony was not based upon any expert knowledge as a realtor, but was directed to the fact that the figure of $108,-000 severance damages was arrived at by a mathematical calculation made in an improper manner.

While fully concurring with the soundness of what Judge HANEY has said in sustaining this ruling, I wish to go on record, in upholding the action of the trial court, upon an additional ground, also embodied in the motion to strike and inferentially in the ruling.

The motion to strike the testimony of Scudder and MacFadden was based on the further reason that, in accordance with the testimony offered by appellant, the estimated amount of lost…

(dissenting).

I dissent.

I deem it proper to say that my conclusions on all but two of the errors claimed *295 by appellants are the same as those of my associates, although I am not in full accord with the reasons given by them.

My dissent is based upon my conviction that by an instruction given the jury the appellants were erroneously deprived of the benefit of Mr. Veatch’s testimony as to the element of contractor’s profit in his “reproduction new” valuation; and that the Court erroneously struck from the record all of the severance damage testimony relating to the Bellingham office building.

These are substantial items, and if either constitutes error there is no recourse open save reversal.

Claimed Error No.

This concerns a part of the Court’s instruction upon the subject of “reproduction new” of the property sought to be taken by these proceedings as evidence in arriving at the fair cash market value of such property.

The relevant part of the instruction is as follows:

In passing I note that appellants have designated their exceptions to this instruction under four separately stated “reasons” and appellee suggests that they are not sufficiently definite to inform…

Reversal of a decree adjudicating that the taking by appellee of certain properties belonging to Puget Sound Power & Light Company is a “public necessity” and for a “public use”, and reversal of a judgment of $5,000,000 found by the jury to be just compensation for the taking, are sought by appellants.

Establishment of public utility districts to conserve the water and power resources of the State of Washington for the benefit of the people thereof, and to supply public utility service, including water and electricity for all uses is authorized by 11 Rem.Rev.Statutes of Wash. §§ 11605-11616. The districts are municipal corporations (§ 11606) and are created in accordance with the votes of the electors. §§ 11607-11609. § 11610 provides in part:

Appellee was created pursuant to the votes of electors in 1936. On April 17, 1939, the Commission of appellee adopted Resolution No. 24, wherein it was provided that the “public interest, welfare, convenience and necessity require the establishment by the District of a public utility * * *« The resolution also specified and adopted, for such purpose, the plan of acquiring “by purchase or condemnation” the properties in question. On the…