Opinion
SC 687.
February 27, 1975.
Appeal from the Circuit Court, Houston County, Keener Baxley, J.
Jack W. Smith, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., Dothan, for appellant.
Before a witness can give opinion testimony as to the value of land he must be shown to be familiar with the land and its value. Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Russell, 35 Ala. App. 345, 48 So.2d 239, reversed 254 Ala. 701, 48 So.2d 249. The opinion of a witness should not be admitted where it appears that his opportunity is known concerning the land is slight or that it is remote in point of time. Pearl River Valley Water Supply Dist. v. Wood, 252 Miss. 580, 172 So.2d 196. Where railroad property is taken for public use, a witness who has no knowledge of the value of railroad right-of-way is not competent to testify merely because there is a showing that he knows something about building contracting or grocery store business. Mauvaisterre Draingage Level Dist. Wabash R. Co., 299 Ill. 299, 132 N.E. 559, 22 A.L.R. 944.
Lee McInish, Merrill Harrison, Dothan, for appellees.
Direct testimony as to the market value is in the nature of opinion evidence. One need not be an expert or dealer in the article, but may testify as to value, if he has had an opportunity for forming a correct opinion. Title 7, Code of Alabama, Section 367. The weight or credit to be given the testimony as to the value of property by witnesses is for the jury to determine. Gossett v. Morrow, 187 Ala. 387 at 392, 65 So. 826; Hyde v. Starnes, 247 Ala. 26, 22 So.2d 421; State v. Johnson, 268 Ala. 11, 104 So.2d 915. The question of whether or not a witness has had an opportunity of forming a correct opinion of the value of the property involved is a preliminary question for the Trial Court and is a matter largely within his discretion, and the ruling thereon will not be reviewed except where the ruling is clearly unjust. Morris v. State, 25 Ala. App. 494, 149 So. 359; Farm Industries v. Howell, 39 Ala. App. 131, 95 So.2d 808; Blount County v. Campbell, 268 Ala. 548, 109 So.2d 678; Kirby v. Brooks, 215 Ala. 507, 111 So. 235. A person is competent to testify as to his opinion as to value "if he has had an opportunity for forming a correct opinion" and testifies in substance that he has done so. State v. Johnson, 268 Ala. 11, 104 So.2d 915, supra; Blount County v. Campbell, 268 Ala. 548, 109 So.2d 678, supra. A witness need not be an expert in order to testify as to the value of buildings and improvements on property where the witness stated he had an opinion of the value of the buildings and that he saw and inspected them. Alabama Power Company v. Allen, 218 Ala. 416, 118 So. 662.
The State appeals from a condemnation award. Counsel for the State urges two points for reversal: (1) lay witnesses were allowed to testify as to value of the two condemned tracts, and (2) the verdict was excessive.
We have examined the record and find that each of the lay witnesses testified that they were generally familiar with the property and each stated that he had an opinion as to the value of the parcels. A person is competent to give his opinion as to value if he has had an opportunity to form a correct opinion and testifies, in substance, that he has done so. State v. Woodham, 292 Ala. 363, 294 So.2d 740 (1974). The jury weighs the value of the testimony of such witnesses. State v. Johnson, 268 Ala. 11, 104 So.2d 915 (1958).
The State's argument that the verdict is excessive is not persuasive either. The verdict was within the range of the highest value placed on the land by the landowner's witnesses and the lowest value put thereon by witnesses for the State. See State of Alabama v. Wise Development Co. (decided February 27, 1975), 293 Ala. 671, 309 So.2d 448.
In condemnation cases the conclusion of the trier of fact is to be given great weight. State v. Rigas, 282 Ala. 541, 213 So.2d 386 (1968). In Rountree Farm Co. v. Morgan County, 249 Ala. 472, 31 So.2d 346 (1947), this Court said:
"In condemnation cases there is often, as here, a wide divergence of opinion of witnesses as to values and items of damage. Claims by the property owner are sometimes exaggerated, and on the other hand are frequently minimized by the condemnor, both usually acting in good faith. The jury trying the issue must arrive at its verdict by reconciling the various opinions as best it can, and must analyze the evidence in the light of its common knowledge." 249 Ala. at 476, 31 So.2d at 350.
The jury verdict is fairly supported by the evidence. State v. Woodham, supra. There is no reversible error in the record. We affirm.
Affirmed.
HEFLIN, C. J., and MERRILL, JONES and SHORES, JJ., concur.