ÿWPCÜ …# VUNa %¯ 0(µw@Ý4 1 UP@ 0l 0Dü 0J@ 0TŠ 0^Þ 0h< 0r¤ 0| 0†’ 0 B¨ 1uÅ 0d:U>žU 6ÜB)DC; AM~U*Ë D3õ(k8 0@£>ãÅ!v~ævÓd AO7Ɔ 0DL D/ B¿˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ iDjUkDlmEnPoUpqÓ€}·‚^!3|x}&@FÐZ ‹8CaslonOpnface BT Regular((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô d ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd€-'Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial'ÿÿdxd Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÔ€)ÔÔ€)ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€)XÔÌÌò òNovember€22,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€)ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó aÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€%ÔÔ€%ôÔWe€refer€to€the€ð ðplaintiffðð€in€this€opinion€rather€than€using€theÏð ðlongerðð€label€of€the€ð ðparty€in€whose€favor€the€verdict€has€been€renderedððÏbecause€in€the€typical€case,€the€plaintiff€is€the€party€seeking€compensationÏand€hence€the€one€in€whose€favor€the€verdict€is€rendered.€€In€the€instantÏcase,€ð ðthe€part[ies]€in€whose€favor€the€verdict€has€been€renderedðð€are€theÏrespondents€„„€the€landowners.Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò 4Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€%ÔÔ€%ôÔOf€course,€the€party€in€whose€favor€the€remittitur€is€made€can€raiseÏother€issues,€as€the€petitioners€have€in€this€case.Ì »Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€%ÔÔ€%ôÔThe€jury€verdict€was€$1,710,500,€a€little€higher€than€Fletcherððs€valueÏof€$1,578,000.€€The€landowners€testified€that€the€property€was€worthÏ$3,000,000,€while€the€two€expert€witnesses€called€by€the€petitioners€arrivedÏat€values€of€$525,000€and€$567,000.ÌPtPtHHøHÿöÿòV,(ühhØ hd'0ÿÎÿºF ® Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÑ P ÑÔ€%ÔÑ7€%-XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ\R AØ'\Ñà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OFÏTENNESSEEÌÙ€€ÙßL€(+';+'h|i` Å `€€LßÌÌÌCITY€OF€GATLINBURG,€TENNESSEE,€€€)€C/A€NO.€03A01„9606„CV„00199ÌCITY€OF€PIGEON€FORGE,€TENNESSEE,€)€SEVIER€COUNTYÏCIRCUIT€COURTÌCITY€OF€SEVIERVILLE,€TENNESSEE,€€)ÌCOUNTY€OF€SEVIER,€TENNESSEE,€and€)ÌSEVIER€SOLID€WASTE,€INC.,€à à€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)Ìà àà àPetitioners„Appellees,€)€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)€Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)ÌGRADY€BASCOM€FOX,€JR.€and€wife,€€)ÌIRENE€DIXON€FOX,€andà àà à€€€)ÌCARROLL€L.€FOX€and€wife,à àà à€€€)ÌMILDRED€PERRYMAN€FOX,à àà à€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)€HONORABLE€WILLIAM€R.€HOLT,€JR.Ìà àà àRespondents„Appellants.)€JUDGEÌÌÌÌFor€Appellantsà àà àà àà àà àFor€AppelleesÌÌDAVID€C.€LEEà àà àà àà àà àRONALD€E.€SHARPÌJ.D.€LEEà àà àà àà àà àà àSharp€&€RipleyÌLee,€Lee€&€Leeà àà àà àà àà àSevierville,€TennesseeÌKnoxville,€TennesseeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àÔ€ ÔÔ€  ÔO€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÔ€%ÔÔ€%XÔÌÌÌÌÌÌÌVACATED€AND€REMANDEDà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSusano,€J.€ÌÓÓà àà àThis€is€a€condemnation€case.€€Petitioners€acquired€byÏeminent€domain€a€tract€of€real€property€in€Sevier€County€for€useÏas€a€landfill.€€The€petitionersðð€authority€to€take€the€land€is€notÏin€question;€this€appeal€only€involves€the€amount€of€compensationÏto€which€the€landowners€are€entitled.€€Following€the€first€juryÏverdict,€the€trial€judge€suggested€a€remittitur,€which€wasÏaccepted€by€the€landowners.€€The€petitioners,€however,€refused€toÏaccept€the€remittitur,€and€the€trial€judge,€believing€he€wasÏrequired€to€do€so,€granted€them€a€new€trial.€€A€second€jury€trialÏwas€conducted,€yielding€a€much€smaller€verdict.€€The€landownersÏappealed,€contending€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€granting€theÏpetitioners€a€new€trial.€€They€seek€to€have€the€first€verdict,Ïless€the€remittitur,€reinstated.€€The€following€question€isÏpresented€for€our€review:ÌÌÓÓà àà8 àDoes€acceptance€of€a€remittitur€lieÏexclusively€with€the€party€in€whose€favor€theÏjury€verdict€has€been€rendered?ÌÌÓÓÌThe€petitioners€also€raise€issues,€which€in€substance€allege€errorÏin€the€method€of€valuation€utilized€by€the€landowners€and€theirÏexpert€witness.€€They€claim€that€the€first€jury€heard€improperÏtestimony€and€that€its€verdict€is€tainted€by€that€evidence.ÌÌÌÌà@ àIÌÌà àà àThe€subject€property€consists€of€155.57€acres€of€pastureÏland€and€woodland€located€near€the€heavily„traveled€parkway€inÏPigeon€Forge.€€It€was€not€being€farmed€at€the€time€of€the€takingÏin€1991,€but€it€had€been€previously€used€for€this€purpose,€goingÏback€to€1915.€€Following€an€extensive€study€of€the€area,€theÏpetitioners€chose€this€tract€as€the€best€available€site€for€a€newÏlandfill,€due€to€its€size,€soil€content,€accessibility,€andÏproximity€to€an€older€landfill.€€The€petitioners€then€filed€aÏjoint€petition€for€condemnation€and€were€subsequently€awardedÏtitle€to€and€possession€of€the€land.ÌÌà àà àThe€landowners€retained€an€expert€witness,€JeffÍFletcher,€to€make€an€appraisal€of€the€condemned€property.€€TheÏpetitioners€filed€a€motion€in€limine€seeking€to€exclude€FletcherððsÏtestimony,€due€to€his€alleged€use€of€improper€comparable€sales€andÏbecause€he€allegedly€based€his€opinion€of€the€propertyððs€valueÏsolely€upon€its€highest€and€best€use.€€The€trial€court€excludedÏone€ð ðcomparableðð€sale€from€Fletcherððs€analysis,€found€that€theÏweight€and€credibility€to€be€given€the€other€comparable€sales€wereÏmatters€for€the€jury€to€decide,€and€ruled€that€Fletcher€would€notÏbe€allowed€to€limit€his€appraisal€to€the€landððs€highest€and€bestÏuse.ÌÌà àà àAt€trial,€Fletcher€testified€that€the€property€wasÏworth,€on€average,€approximately€$10,000€an€acre.€€He€arrived€at€aÏtotal€value€of€$1,578,000.€€Landowners€Grady€and€Carroll€Fox€eachÏtestified€that€the€land€was€worth€$3,000,000.€€The€petitionersððÏtwo€expert€witnesses€testified€that€the€value€of€the€land€wasÏ$525,000€and€$567,000,€respectively.€€The€jury€returned€a€verdictÏfor€$1,710,500.€€The€trial€judge€then€suggested€a€remittitur€ofÏ$315,000,€which€was€accepted€by€the€landowners,€thus€reducing€theÏverdict€to€$1,395,500.€€The€petitioners,€however,€refused€toÏaccept€the€verdict€after€the€remittitur,€and€moved€for€a€newÏtrial.€€Petitioners€cited€the€case€of€ò òòòPitts€v.€Exxonóóó ó,€596€S.W.2dÍ830€(Tenn.€1980),€as€authority€for€the€proposition€that€the€partyÏin€whose€favor€a€remittitur€is€made€has€the€choice€of€eitherÏaccepting€the€remitted€verdict€or€demanding€a€new€trial.€€BasedÏsolely€upon€language€in€the€ò òòòPittsóóó ó€opinion,€the€trial€court€grantedÏa€new€trial€to€the€petitioners,€as€they€were€the€parties€in€whoseÏfavor€the€verdict€adjustment€was€made.€€Following€the€secondÏtrial,€a€new€jury€returned€a€verdict€of€$915,000.€€The€landownersÏappealed,€arguing€that€the€grant€of€a€new€trial€was€improper.€ÏThey€urge€us€to€reinstate€the€remitted€verdict€of€$1,395,500.ÌÌà@ àIIÌÌà àà àWe€must€first€determine€whether€the€trial€court€properlyÏgranted€a€new€trial€based€upon€its€interpretation€of€the€€SupremeÏCourtððs€decision€in€ò òòòPitts€v.€Exxonó óóó,€òòsupraóó.€€While€a€new€trialÏgrant€pursuant€to€a€trial€judgeððs€function€as€the€thirteenth€jurorÏis€not€reviewable,€it€is€not€every€grant€of€a€new€trial€thatÏinvolves€the€thirteenth€juror€role.€€òòSee,€e.g.,óó€ò òòòHuskey€v.€Crispóóó ó,Ï865€S.W.2d€451,€454€(Tenn.€1993).€€In€this€case,€the€trial€judgeÏdid€not€act€in€his€capacity€as€the€thirteenth€juror,€as€would€haveÏbeen€the€case€had€he€granted€a€new€trial€upon€finding€the€juryððsÏverdict€to€be€contrary€to€the€evidence€and€not€correctable€byÍremittitur€or€additur.€€On€the€contrary,€he€suggested€aÏremittitur,€which€presumably€corrected€the€verdict€in€hisÏestimation.€€Only€because€the€petitioners€refused€to€accept€theÏremitted€verdict€did€the€trial€judge€conclude€that,€as€a€matter€ofÏlaw,€ò òòòPittsó óóó€required€that€he€grant€a€new€trial.€€ÌÌà àà àWe€review€òòde€novoóó€the€trial€courtððs€award€of€a€newÏtrial,€with€no€presumption€of€correctness.€€ò òòòCampbell€v.€FloridaÏSteel€Corp.ó óóó,€919€S.W.2d€26€(Tenn.€1996).ÌÌà àà àThe€relevant€portion€of€the€òòò òPittsó óóó€decision,€upon€whichÏthe€trial€judge€relied,€provides€as€follows:ÌÌÓÓà àà8 àWhere€either€remittitur€or€additur€is€used,Ïthe€choice€of€a€new€trial€and€new€jury€orÏappellate€review€is€available€to€the€party€òòinÏwhose€favoróó€òòtheóó€òòadjustment€is€madeóó,€andÏappellate€review€is€available€to€the€otherÏparty€where€the€appellate€courts€may€eitherÏadjust€the€verdict€to€conform€to€the€evidenceÏif€statutorily€and€judicially€authorized€to€doÏso,€and,€where€not,€a€new€trial€may€beÏgranted.ÌÌÓÓÌò òòòPittsóóó ó,€596€S.W.2d€at€836€(emphasis€added).€€ÌÌà àà àWe€acknowledge€that€the€quoted€sentence€seems€to€Íindicate€that€the€petitioners€„€the€parties€in€whose€favor€theÏremittitur€was€made€„€had€the€right€to€demand€a€new€trial.€ÏHowever,€we€cannot€escape€the€conclusion€that€the€italicizedÏlanguage€quoted€above€represents€a€ð ðslip€of€the€penðð€by€theÏSupreme€Court.€€The€overwhelming€weight€of€authority€in€Tennessee,Ïincluding€authority€cited€in€other€parts€of€ò òòòPittsó óóó,€indicates€thatÏit€is€not€the€party€in€whose€favor€the€remittitur€is€made,€butÏrather€it€is€the€party€in€whose€favoròò€the€verdict€was€renderedóó€whoÏhas€the€option€of€choosing€a€new€trial€rather€than€appealing€orÏaccepting€a€remittitur.€€For€instance,€the€relevant€portion€of€theÏremittitur€statute€provides:ÌÌÓÓà àà8 àIn€all€jury€trials€had€in€civil€actions,€afterÏthe€verdict€has€been€rendered,€and€on€motionÏfor€a€new€trial,€when€the€trial€judge€is€ofÏthe€opinion€that€the€verdict€in€favor€of€aÏparty€should€be€reduced,€and€a€remittitur€isÏsuggested€by€the€trial€judge€on€that€account,Ïwith€the€proviso€that€in€case€the€party€òòinÏwhose€favor€the€verdict€has€been€renderedóóÏrefuses€to€make€the€remittitur€a€new€trialÏwill€beòò€óóawarded,€the€òòparty€in€whose€favor€suchÏverdict€has€been€renderedóó€may€make€suchÏremittitur€under€protest,€and€appeal€from€theÏaction€of€the€trial€judge€to€the€court€ofÏappeals.ÌÌÓÓÌT.C.A.€ðð€20„10„102(a)€(emphasis€added).€€As€construed€by€the€trialÏcourt,€the€language€in€ò òòòPittsó óóó€directly€contradicts€that€of€theÍstatute.ÌÌà àà àTennessee€cases€are€in€line€with€the€language€of€theÏstatute€and,€consequently,€inconsistent€with€the€trial€courtððsÏinterpretation€of€ò òòòPittsóóó ó.€€For€example,€the€Supreme€Court€hasÏstated€thatÌÌÓÓà àà8 àthe€remittitur€and€additur€statutes€wereÏenacted€for€the€purpose€of€giving€theÏòòplaintiffóó,€in€the€case€of€remittiturs,€and€theÏdefendant,€in€the€case€of€additurs,€the€rightÏto€accept,€under€protest,€and€appeal€....€TheÏsubject€statutes€make€no€reference€whatever€toÏthe€right€of€a€defendant,€in€case€ofÏremittitur,€to€appeal€and€contest€theÏinadequacy€of€the€remittitur€or€the€right€of€aÏplaintiff€to€appeal€and€contest€the€inadequacyÏof€an€additur,€both€of€which€rightsÏunquestionably€exist€....ÌÌÓÓÌò òòòSmith€v.€Sheltonó óóó,€569€S.W.2d€421,€426€(Tenn.€1978)€(emphasisÏadded).€€As€the€òòò òSmithó óóó€case€indicates,€in€the€typical€case€theÏchoice€lies€with€the€plaintiff× ƒ, ××  ×€„€the€party€in€whose€favor€theÏverdict€is€rendered€„€and€therefore€not€the€party€in€whose€favorÍthe€remittitur€is€made€(i.e.,€the€defendant).€€The€plaintiff€mayÏaccept€the€remittitur€and€appeal,€or,€as€provided€in€T.C.A.€ðð€20„10„102(a),€may€refuse€to€make€the€remittitur€and€demand€a€newÏtrial.€€The€only€right€of€the€defendant€(in€this€case,€theÏpetitioners)€that€is€acknowledged€is€the€right€to€appeal€theÏinadequacy€of€the€remittitur× ƒ. ××  ×€„„€not€to€demand€a€new€trial.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€ÏIn€addition,€our€court€has€recently€explained€thatÌÌÓÓà àà8 à[r]emittiturs€of€jury€verdicts€forÏexcessiveness€are€not€made€by€courts,€but€byÏthe€successful€party.€€The€court€has€theÏdiscretionary€power€to€offer€òòthe€prevailingÏpartyóó€the€opportunity€to€waive€or€ð ðremitðð€theÏexcessive€portion€of€the€verdict€as€anÏalternative€to€setting€the€verdict€aside€forÏexcessiveness€and€ordering€a€new€trial.€€It€isÏtherefore€said€that€the€court€ð ðsuggestsðð€aÏremittitur€and€òòthe€successful€partyóó,€òòifÏwillingóó€ð ðmakesðð€the€remittitur.ÌÌÓÓÌò òòòLong€v.€Mattinglyóóó ó,€817€S.W.2d€325,€329€(Tenn.€App.€1991)Ï(emphasis€added).€€ÌÌà àà àWhile€no€support€for€the€trial€courtððs€interpretation€ofÏthe€statement€in€ò òòòPittsóóó ó€can€be€found€in€the€law€of€this€state,€manyÍother€Tennessee€cases€illustrate€the€concept€that€it€is€theÏprevailing€partyððs€sole€prerogative€to€request€a€new€trial€whenÏthe€court€suggests€a€remittitur.€€òòSee,€e.g.,€ò òMagness€v.€B.€HittÏElectric€Co.óóó ó,€604€S.W.2d€44€(Tenn.€1980);€ò òòòDixie€Feed€&€SeedÏCo.€v.€Byrdóóó ó,€376€S.W.2d€745€(Tenn.€App.€1963);ò òòò€Westmoreland€v.ÏTolbertóóó ó,€1990€WL€48464€(Tenn.€App.,€M.S.,€filed€April€11,€1990,ÏKoch,€J.).€€Furthermore,€cases€dealing€with€additur€set€forth€aÏlogical€corollary€of€the€idea€that€only€the€plaintiff€is€entitledÏto€accept€or€reject€a€remittitur,€by€holding€that€it€is€theÏòòdefendantóó€who€has€the€choice€of€whether€to€accept€an€additur.€ÏòòSee,€e.g.,€ò òEvans€v.€Wilsonó óóó,€776€S.W.2d€939,€941€(Tenn.€1989)€andÏò òòòSmith€v.€Sheltonóóó ó,€569€S.W.2d€at€426.ÌÌà àà àWe€also€note€that€no€authority€is€cited€in€ò òòòPittsóóó ó€toÏsupport€the€disputed€proposition;€to€the€contrary,€each€case€citedÏwithin€the€opinion€speaks€only€in€terms€of€the€plaintiffððsÏacceptance€or€refusal€of€a€suggested€remittitur.€In€light€of€theÏforegoing,€we€can€only€conclude€that€the€Supreme€Courtððs€statementÏin€ò òòòPitts€v.€Exxonó óóó€was€simply€a€ð ðslip€of€the€pen.ðð€€We€believeÏthe€Supreme€Court€òòintendedóó€to€state€the€following€in€òòò òPittsó óóó:ÌÓÓÌà àà8 àWhere€either€remittitur€or€additur€is€used,Ïthe€choice€of€a€new€trial€and€new€jury€orÏappellate€review€is€available€to€the€partyÍòòagainst€whom€óóthe€adjustment€is€made,€andÏappellate€review€is€available€to€the€otherÏparty€where€the€appellate€courts€may€eitherÏadjust€the€verdict€to€conform€to€the€evidenceÏif€statutorily€and€judicially€authorized€to€doÏso,€and,€where€not,€a€new€trial€may€beÏgranted.ÌÌÌà àÌÓÓ(Emphasis€added).€€This€expression€of€remittitur€and€additurÏprocedures€would€be€consistent€with€the€provisions€of€T.C.A.€ððððÏ20„10„101€and€„102,€as€well€as€the€case€law€of€Tennessee.€ÏConsequently,€in€a€remittitur€situation,€the€choice€of€a€new€trialÏor€acceptance€of€the€remittitur€would€fall€only€to€the€plaintiff,Ïwho€would€be€the€party€against€whom€the€adjustment€was€made,€sinceÏthe€plaintiffððs€verdict€would€have€been€reduced€by€the€remittitur.€ÏConversely,€in€the€case€of€additur,€the€choice€of€a€new€trial€orÏacceptance€would€lie€with€the€defendant,€since€the€adjustmentÏwould€increase€the€verdict€and€thus€operate€against€the€defendant.ÌÌà àà àWe€point€out€this€perceived€oversight€in€the€ò òòòPitts€óóó ócaseÏwith€all€due€respect€to€the€Supreme€Court.€€In€so€doing,€we€areÏnot€unmindful€of€our€obligation€to€follow€the€directives€of€thatÏsuperior€court.€€òòSeeóó€ò òòòHolder€v.€Tennessee€Judicial€SelectionÏCommissionóóó ó,€___€S.W.2d€___€,€No.€01S01„9610„CH„00211€(Tenn.,Ïfiled€October€23,€1996)(for€publication).€€We€offer€our€opinion€inÍthe€hope€that€the€Supreme€Court€will€revisit€the€questioned€Ïstatement€in€ò òòòPittsóóó ó€to€correct€the€courtððs€apparent€ð ðslip€of€theÏpen.ððÌÌà àà àWe€therefore€conclude€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÏgranting€a€new€trial€to€the€petitioners€based€solely€upon€itsÏinterpretation€ofòòò ò€Pittsóóó ó.ÌÌà àà àOur€inquiry€does€not€end€here,€however,€since€theÏpetitioners€have€raised€eleven€issues€of€their€own€challenging€theÏfirst€jury€verdict.€€We€must€now€address€these€issues€to€determineÏwhether,€in€light€of€the€improper€award€of€a€new€trial,€we€mayÏrestore€the€first€verdict,€as€remitted.ÌÌà@ àIIIÌÌà àà àPetitioners€raise€several€issues€regarding€testimony€asÏto€the€value€of€the€subject€property.€€The€most€substantial€ofÏthese€issues€assigns€error€in€the€mode€of€valuation€utilized€byÏthe€landownersðð€expert,€Jeff€Fletcher.€€Specifically,€theÏpetitioners€assert€that€Fletcherððs€testimony€was€improperly€basedÏsolely€upon€the€highest€and€best€use€of€the€land.€€ÌÌà àà àWe€first€note€that€the€trial€court€has€wide€discretionÏwith€regard€to€the€admissibility€of€expert€testimony€inÏcondemnation€cases.€€ò òòòState€ex€rel€Comððr,€D.O.T.€v.€Veglioó óóó,Ï786€S.W.2d€944,€948€(Tenn.€App.€1989).€€The€objective€in€such€aÏproceeding€is€to€award€just€compensation€to€the€landowner.€€òòò òLoveÏv.€Smithó óóó,€566€S.W.2d€876,€878€(Tenn.€1978).€€ð ðJust€compensationððÏis€measured€by€the€fair€market€value€of€the€land€at€the€time€ofÏthe€taking.€€ò òòòId.óóó ó;€ò òòòLayne€v.€Speightóóó ó,€529€S.W.2d€209,€214€(Tenn.Ï1975).€€In€making€that€determination,€the€jury€must€consider€allÏreasonable,€available€uses€to€which€the€property€is€adapted.€Ïò òòòLoveóóó ó,€566€S.W.2d€at€878;€ò òòòLayneó óóó,€529€S.W.2d€at€214;€and€ò òòòDavidsonÏCounty€Bd.€of€Educ.€v.€First€Am.€Natððl€Bankóóó ó,€301€S.W.2d€905,Ï907€(Tenn.€1957).€€Therefore,€the€value€of€the€property€may€not€beÏbased€only€upon€its€ð ðhighest€and€bestðð€use.€€ò òòòLoveó óóó,€566€S.W.2d€atÏ878;€ò òòòLayneóóó ó,€529€S.W.2d€at€214;€and€ò òòòDavidson€County€Bd.€ofÏEduc.óóó ó,€301€S.W.2d€at€907.€€€As€stated€in€the€òòò òLoveóóó ó€case,ÌÌÓÓà àà8 àthe€highest€and€best€use€may€be€considered€inÏdetermining€value€but€it€may€not€be€the€òòsoleóóÏmeasure€thereof.€€(citations€omitted).€€AÏcorollary€of€this€principle€is€that€expertÏwitnesses€in€expressing€their€opinions€ofÏvalue€should€not€be€allowed€ð ðto€give€theirÏopinions€as€to€the€value€of€property€for€aÏparticular€purpose.ðð€€(citations€omitted).ÌÌÓÓÌò òòòLoveó óóó,€566€S.W.2d€at€878€(emphasis€added).ÌÌà àà àOur€review€of€the€transcript€of€Fletcherððs€testimonyÏpersuades€us€that,€contrary€to€the€trial€courtððs€directive,€he€didÏin€fact€base€his€opinion€of€the€propertyððs€value€only€on€itsÏhighest€and€best€use.€€Fletcher€testified€in€pertinent€part€asÏfollows:ÌÌÓÓà àà8 àQ.€€What€is€it€that€makes€the€Fox€propertyÏunique?ÌÌà àà àA.€€From€what€I€understand,€now€Iððm€not€an€engineer,Ìà àà àthe€location.€€The€location€is€one€of€theÌà àà àcontributing€factors€to€any€real„estate€value.€€TheÌà àà àsoil€of€the€property€lends€itself€to€a€specificÌà àà àtype€of€use,€and€thatððs€what€makes€it€unique.ÌÌà àà àQ.€€A€landfill?ÌÌà àà àA.€€A€landfill.ÌÌà àà àà àà àà à€€*à à€€*à à€€*ÌÌà àà àQ.€€The€landfill.€€Is€the€landfill€what€makes€theÌà àà àFox€property€unique€and€valuable,€in€your€opinion?ÌÌà àà àA.€€Thatððs€right.ÌÌà àà àQ.€€And€is€that€why€you€place€this€high€value€onÌà àà àit,€is€because€of€its€potential€use€as€a€landfill?ÌÌà àà àA.€€Saying€that€the€highest€and€best€use€of€thisÌà àà àpiece€of€property€out€of€the€alternative€usesÌà àà àavailable,€the€highest€and€best€use€would€be€for€Ìà àà àa€landfill.ÌÌà àà àQ.€€And€my€question€was,€is€that€the€reason€you€Ìà àà àplace€the€high€value€on€the€Fox€property?ÌÌà àà àA.€€Thatððs€correct.ÌÌà àà àQ.€€In€doing€your€analysis€of€the€values€you€Ìà àà àspecifically€did€not€include€any€farm€sales€beingÌà àà àused€for€farm€purposes;€is€that€correct?ÌÌà àà àA.€€Didnððt€think€that€was€the€highest€and€best€Ìà àà àuse€of€the€property.ÌÌà àà àQ.€€But€to€answer€my€question,€you€did€not€useÌ€à àà àany€sales€of€farm€property€for€farm€purposes?ÌÌà àà àA.€€Thatððs€correct.€€And€the€reason€I€didnððt€is,Ìà àà àbecause€I€did€not€consider€farm€use€the€highestÌà àà àand€best€use€of€the€property.€€I€considered€it.€Ìà àà àI€didnððt€think€that€was€the€best€use.ÌÌà àà àQ.€€So€in€other€words,€you€value€the€propertyÌà àà àbased€on€its€highest€and€best€use,€the€Fox€propertyÌà àà àbased€on€its€highest€and€best€use?ÌÌà àà àA.€€Thatððs€what€you€end€up€doing€after€you€considerÌà àà àthe€alternative€uses€that€are€available€for€a€pieceÌà àà àof€property....ÌÌÓÓÌà àà àWe€find€that€this€testimony€clearly€indicates€thatÏFletcher€calculated€the€value€of€the€land€based€only€upon€its€useÏas€a€landfill.€€It€appears€that€he€ð ðconsideredðð€other€uses€for€theÏland,€such€as€residential€or€farming,€but€discarded€them€and€didÏnot€factor€the€landððs€value€for€those€purposes€into€hisÏcalculations.€€We€believe€that€the€principles€of€valuationÍexpressed€in€the€cases€contemplate€more€than€the€computation€of€aÏpiece€of€propertyððs€overall€value€based€solely€upon€its€highestÏand€best€use,€preceded€by€a€mere€acknowledgement€that€otherÏpossible€uses€exist.€€Land€values€based€upon€these€other€uses€mustÏbe€taken€into€account€in€calculating€the€propertyððs€value.€€ÌÌà àà àTherefore,€we€conclude€that€Fletcherððs€testimonyÏimproperly€used€the€propertyððs€highest€and€best€use,€as€aÏlandfill,€as€its€sole€measure€of€valuation.€€We€agree€with€theÏpetitioners€that€the€juryððs€verdict€was€substantially€influencedÏby€his€testimony,€and€thus€we€cannot€find€this€error€to€beÏharmless.€€Rule€36(b),€T.R.A.P.€€òòCf.€ò òLoveó óóó,€566€S.W.2d€at€878„79.€ÏThe€influence€of€Fletcherððs€testimony€upon€the€jury€is€evidencedÏby€the€fact€that€the€initial€verdict€was€closer€to€FletcherððsÏvalue€than€that€of€any€other€witness.× ƒ/ ××  ×€€As€a€result€of€thisÏprejudicial€error,€a€new€trial€is€warranted.€€We€are€aware€that€aÏsecond€trial€was€conducted€in€this€matter,€but€we€cannot€affirmÏthe€verdict€that€it€produced,€since€we€are€not€privy€to€aÏtranscript€or€record€of€those€proceedings.€€Furthermore,€to€acceptÍits€result€would€be€to€ignore€the€trial€courtððs€error€in€grantingÏit€in€the€first€place.€€Fairness€dictates€that€we€remand€this€caseÏto€the€trial€court€for€a€new€trial.ÌÌà@ àIVÌÌà àà àDue€to€the€fact€that€a€new€trial€is€necessary,€we€deemÏit€appropriate€to€address€some€of€the€numerous€additional€errorsÏassigned€by€the€petitioners,€and€to€thereby€offer€some€guidance€toÏthe€trial€court.ÌÌà àà àAnother€significant€issue€raised€by€the€petitioners€isÏwhether€the€testimony€of€Fletcher€and€the€landowners€as€to€theÏvalue€of€the€property€was€based€upon€improper€comparable€sales.€ÏPetitioners€argue€that€the€two€property€sales€principally€reliedÏupon€by€Fletcher€and€the€landowners€were€not€comparable€to€theÏsubject€property,€in€that€one€tract€was€purchased€by€the€DollywoodÏtheme€park€for€use€as€a€parking€lot,€while€the€other€includedÏvaluable€frontage€on€the€Pigeon€Forge€parkway.€€The€trial€judgeÏallowed€the€use€of€these€sales,€over€the€objection€of€theÏpetitioners.ÌÌà àà àIt€is€well„settled€that€the€admission€of€comparableÏsales€in€a€condemnation€action€falls€largely€within€the€soundÏdiscretion€of€the€trial€court.€€ò òòòLayneóóó ó,€529€S.W.2d€at€211;€ò òòòMemphisÏHousing€Auth.€v.€Peabody€Garage€Co.óóó ó,€505€S.W.2d€719,€722Ï(Tenn.€1974);€ò òòòVeglioó óóó,€786€S.W.2d€at€946;€and€òòò òShelby€County€v.ÏStallcupóóó ó,€594€S.W.2d€392,€396€(Tenn.€App.€1979).€€As€aÏpreliminary€matter,€the€trial€judge€considers€all€factors€whichÏbear€upon€that€issue;€once€a€comparable€sale€is€admitted€intoÏevidence,€the€weight€to€be€given€that€transaction€becomes€aÏquestion€for€the€jury.€€ò òòòStallcupóóó ó,€594€S.W.2d€at€396;€ò òòòMemphisÏHousing€Auth.€v.€Newtonóóó ó,€484€S.W.2d€896,€898€(Tenn.€App.€1972).ÌÌà àà àFor€a€sale€to€be€admitted€as€a€comparable€sale,€a€pieceÏof€property€must€be€similar€to€the€condemned€land€in€type€andÏlocation,€and€it€must€have€been€sold€near€the€time€of€the€taking.€Ïò òòòMaryville€Housing€Auth.€v.€Ramseyóóó ó;€484€S.W.2d€73,€75€(Tenn.ÏApp.€1972);€òòò òMemphis€Housing€Auth.€v.€Ryanó óóó,€393€S.W.2d€3,€11Ï(Tenn.€App.€1964).€€It€need€not€be€identical€to€the€condemnedÏproperty.€€òòò òRyanó óóó,€393€S.W.2d€at€11.€€No€bright„line€rules€exist€asÏto€the€requisite€degree€of€physical€similarity,€distance,€orÏproximity€in€time;€again,€these€matters€rest€within€the€discretionÏof€the€trial€judge.€€òòò òNewtonó óóó,€484€S.W.2d€at€897;€òòò òRamseyó óóó,€484ÍS.W.2d€at€76.ÌÌà àà àIn€view€of€the€foregoing€authority,€we€cannot€concludeÏthat€the€trial€judge€abused€his€discretion€in€allowing€testimonyÏbased€upon€the€disputed€comparable€sales.€€The€transcriptÏindicates€that€both€sides€were€allowed€sufficient€opportunity€toÏdemonstrate€the€similarities€and€dissimilarities€of€each€sale.€ÏòòSee€ò òStallcupóóó ó,€594€S.W.2d€at€396.€€The€weight€to€be€assigned€toÏeach€saleððs€comparability€was€properly€left€to€the€jury,€once€theÏtrial€judge€determined€those€sales€to€be€admissible.ÌÌà àà àPetitioners€further€argue€that€the€testimony€of€FletcherÏand€the€landowners€was€impermissibly€based€upon€the€value€of€theÏproperty€as€a€landfill,€the€purpose€for€which€it€was€condemned.€ÏIt€is€true€that€a€property€owner€generally€is€not€entitled€to€anÏincrease€in€the€landððs€value€due€to€the€public€improvement€forÏwhich€it€is€taken.€€ò òòòLayneóóó ó,€529€S.W.2d€at€212.€€Furthermore,€theÏvalue€of€property€taken€by€eminent€domain€is€to€be€determinedÏwithout€regard€to€ð ðany€enhancement€or€depreciation€which€occurredÏbefore€the€taking€in€anticipation€of€the€[public]€improvement.ðð€Ïò òòòVeglioó óóó,€786€S.W.2d€at€946.€€Nevertheless,€in€the€instant€case,€theÏpropertyððs€potentially€enhanced€value€as€a€landfill€existsÍindependent€of€the€project€for€which€it€was€taken.€€In€otherÏwords,€the€land€is€not€potentially€valuable€as€a€landfill€òòbecauseóóÏthe€petitioners€plan€to€use€it€for€that€purpose;€the€land€isÏpotentially€valuable€because€it€is€„€and€has€been€„€€uniquelyÏsuited€for€use€as€a€landfill.€€This€is€supported€by€the€testimonyÏas€to€its€soil€content,€accessibilty,€location,€proximity€toÏanother€landfill,€and€other€features,€all€of€which€existed€priorÏto€the€propertyððs€condemnation.ÌÌà àà àIt€is€clear€that€a€landownerÌÌÓÓà àà8 àhas€the€right€to€have€the€jury€to€consider€anyÏspecial€uses€and€adaptabilities€to€which€theÏland€is€shown€to€be€susceptible.€€If€the€landÏis€adapted€to€a€special€use€which€enhances€itsÏvalue€this€value€belongs€to€the€owner,€and€heÏhas€the€right€to€demand€consideration€thereofÏin€estimating€the€market€value.ÌÌÓÓÌò òòòStroud€v.€Stateóóó ó,€279€S.W.2d€82,€88€(Tenn.€App.€1955)€(citingÏò òòòAlloway€v.€Nashvilleóóó ó,€88€Tenn.€510,€13€S.W.€123,€and€ò òòòMcKinneyÏv.€Memphis,€etc.,€Hotel€Co.ó óóó,€59€Tenn.€104,€131).€€òòAccordò òÏDavidson€County€Bd.€of€Educ.€v.€First€Am.€Natððl€Bankó óóó,€301ÏS.W.2d€905,€909€(Tenn.€1957).€€In€addition,€it€has€been€explainedÏthatÌÌÓÓà àà8 à[i]n€determining€the€market€cash€value,€youÏcannot€single€out€from€the€elements€of€generalÏvalue€the€value€for€an€especial€[sic]€purpose;Ïbut€you€are€to€consider€all€the€constituentÏelements€that€make€up€the€market€value,„„itsÏavailability,€adaptability,€and€capability€forÏdifferent€uses€and€purposes.ÌÌÓÓò òòòÌDavidson€County€Bd.€of€Educ.ó óóó,€301€S.W.2d€at€909€(quotingòòò òÏAllowayóóó ó,€88€Tenn.€510,€13€S.W.€124).€€Therefore,€we€conclude€thatÏthe€propertyððs€potential€value€as€a€landfill€may€properly€beÏconsidered€in€the€overall€determination€of€its€value.€€AsÏexplained€earlier,€the€use€of€the€property€as€a€landfill€may€notÏbe€the€òòsoleóó€measure€of€its€value€in€this€case,€but€it€may€be€oneÏof€the€considerations€factored€into€that€calculation.ÌÌà àà àAs€an€additional€matter,€the€petitioners€assert€that€theÏtestimony€of€Fletcher€and€the€landowners€was€based€in€part€uponÏvalues€taken€from€the€oaths€on€the€deeds€of€conveyance€for€theÏcomparable€sales.€€They€allege€this€to€be€in€violation€of€T.C.A.€ððÏ67„4„409(c),€which€states€as€follows:ÌÌÓÓà àà8 àAny€oath€required€in€subsections€(a)€and€(b)Ï[transfers€of€realty,€mortgages,€deeds€ofÏtrust€and€other€instruments]€shall€not€beÏintroduced€as€evidence€in€any€proceeding€hadÍin€connection€with€any€condemnation€action€forÏthe€purpose€of€indicating€the€value€of€suchÏreal€property.ÌÌÓÓÌWe€disagree€with€the€petitionersðð€contention.€€This€statuteÏprecludes€using€the€sworn„to€amount€on€the€deed€of€conveyance€ofÏthe€òòcondemnedóó€property€as€proof€of€its€value;€it€does€not,Ïhowever,€forbid€using€amounts€from€deeds€of€conveyance€ofÏòòcomparable€óóproperty€to€calculate€the€value€of€land€that€has€beenÏcondemned.€€òòSee€ò òLove€v.€Smithó óóó,€566€S.W.2d€876€(Tenn.€1978);Ïò òòòState,€ex€rel€D.O.T.€v.€Harveyó óóó,€680€S.W.2d€792€(Tenn.€App.Ï1984).€€Thus,€we€find€this€issue€as€framed€by€the€petitioners€toÏbe€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àPetitionersðð€remaining€issues€raise€questions€of€theÏreasonableness€of€the€verdict,€the€influence€of€passion,Ïprejudice,€or€caprice€upon€the€jury,€and€the€duty€of€the€trialÏjudge€to€grant€a€new€trial€when€dissatisfied€with€the€verdict.€€InÏview€of€our€disposition€of€the€other€issues,€we€find€itÏunnecessary€to€address€these€matters.€ÌÌà àà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€vacated.€€Costs€onÏappeal€are€assessed€against€the€appellees.€€This€case€is€remandedÍto€the€trial€court€for€a€new€trial,€consistent€with€this€opinion.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ________________________ÌHouston€M.€Goddard,€P.J.ÌÌÌÌ________________________ÌHerschel€P.€Franks,€J.