WPCM E{>˸ePJuGp}Wf+YGj}b[z4& GmH7 SK)+\}1$6, ̼ik,0tئ_t) {k;kߦo}%MɄΊ6Hl:sfM@<PV6zrC^G9Pn>GWauBLi0Q1Έ_  pu| بA\L~+3!q܉$,DMibGDәzpBFyJQiƘ]\+U1F o/mqge- ܰ^s.! b.QfPyDZܳ>_Lw(7Ke0_#}3 0L3 0D4 0&5 066 06 07 08 0h9 02:: 0l: 0:h; 0Y; 0_; 0 Z< 0d= 0> B*@ 0A D/B 00B D/6D BeD 0D 0PE D3E D-'F 0KTF 06F ASF(G 0G 0DH AH 0I 0:J 0^J 0<!K 1e]K 0NKU6LU>FLU*LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL 1uL 72#M 0cUMHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6,,,,0/nK-s (`$.8dd8    ,-I("  Z6Times New Roman Regular C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU  R8$      5  qm  _Asfarasmonetarydamagesareconcerned,the rangeofreasonablenessistherangeofdamagesbetween  theupperandlowerlimitsestablishedbytheevidence.Ellisv.WhiteFreightlinerCorp.,603S.W.2d125,126(Tenn.  1980).Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0    P.J.DunlapJannaRobbsThurmanThurstone]xceptTeterWhitehurst Derrt]heseBlankenshipWalldorfMcCarleyKinnardGrissomGov't D.M.BalthropGilbreathNelmsMcCrayTranspsRadleyKingswayNatlEatherlyShofnerMagness HittShelton M R8$      6  qm  _Theappraiserstatedthatincreasedfloodingontenacresofthetractnorthofthenewroadhaddecreasedthe  valueofthattractby$4,200andquantifiedtheseverancedamageat$1,050.  R8$      1  qm  _TheDepartmentscondemnationpetitionnamedothermembersoftheWheelersfamilyasdefendantsbecause  theyhadapropertyinterestinthefarm.Forthesakeofconvenience,wewillrefertoJohnandNonaWheelerasthe  ownersoftheproperty. R8$      2  qm  _OneofthetwotractssouthofCorridorJwasa1@acre,triangularpieceofproperty.  R8$      4  qm  _DespiteitsoriginalassertionthattherecordcontainsnomaterialevidencetosupporttheWheelersclaimfor  incidentaldamagestotheirpropertyoneitherthenorthorsouthsideoftheroad,theDepartmentappearstoconcedein  itsbriefthat theDefendants[theWheelers]theorymaynotbeimplausibleastotheroadholdingbackfloodwaters H onthenorthsideofthefarm....Inlightofthisconcession,wewillfocusourattentionontheevidenceregardingthe  L effectofthenewroadandbridgeontheWheelerspropertylyingsouthoftheroad.*+ (_2623  ..*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #   6 R8$      3  qm  _TheDepartmentbasesitsargumentonTenn.CodeAnn.6239103(a)(1997)whichprovides,inpart,that   [e]xceptasprovidedin6239104...itisunlawfulforanyonetosolicitanappraisalassignment,orpreparean  appraisaloranappraisalreportrelatingtorealestateorrealpropertyinthisstate,withoutfirstobtainingarealestate H appraiserslicenseorcertificate.Accordingtothestate,theonlyexceptiontothisrestrictionisTenn.CodeAnn.62  L 39335(1997),whichpermitslicensedrealestatebrokerstotestifyasexpertwitnessesregardingthevalueofproperty.*,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  - -*,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition T  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(hh&H1  5+ ` hp x 5      5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H2  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H3  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H4  5+ ` hp x 5 XXX 5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H5  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H6  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  2DD0Address  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKh<6X9`(Courier NewKSi\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard Kh<6X9`(Courier NewKSi\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/Kh<6X9`(Courier NewKSi\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 7S(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?j%2A`Arial?  Si\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X75+ ` hp x 5  &  d d(|G28$ !.8UdXXd8         0  qmQ)1dxd<:zTop of For7U(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?j%2A`Arial?  Si\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X75+ ` hp x 5  Q)2dxd d0KS.SampleKh<6X9`(Courier NewKSi\  `&Times New RomanS(|3ك$ !.8UdXXd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  0.Strong ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3ك$ !.8UdXXd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK8dl6TypewriterKh<6X9`(Courier NewKSi\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  '()*,-/0 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(O$<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)~i)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  !.8Udd8     _H  U8XXdd8  @ UINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#U(#Ԉ &   November9,1999Session  L XXU #UXX#TENNESSEEDEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATIONv.  J JOHNH.WHEELER,SR.,etal.XXU   ^ @@ AppealfromtheCircuitCourtfor_Sequatchie_ԀCounty  ^ @@No.4086BuddyD.Perry,Judge  J @@*AV) ` dE< ` A  "  @@TTNo.M199900088_COA_ԄR3CVFiledOctober11,_2002_   AV) ` dE<` A      ThisappealinvolvesadisputebetweenafarmerandtheDepartmentofTransportationarisingfrom   theDepartmentscondemnationofaportionofhisfarmforanewhighwayandbridge.Theparties  agreedonthefairmarketvalueofthepropertytakenbutdisagreedontheamountofincidental  damagestotheremainingproperty.FollowingatrialintheCircuitCourtfor_Sequatchie_ԀCounty, t ajuryawardedthefarmowner$200,000inincidentaldamages.TheDepartmentassertsonthis ` appeal(1)thatthereisnoevidencethattheremainingpropertysufferedincidentaldamages,(2)that L thetrialcourterredbypermittingan_unlicensed_Ԁrealestateappraisertoofferanexpertopinion 8x regardingthevalueoftheremainingproperty,and(3)thattheevidencedoesnotsupportthejurys $d damageaward.Whilewehavedeterminedthatthetrialcourterredbyadmittingtheopinion P testimonyofthe_unlicensed_Ԁappraiser,wehavedeterminedthatthiserrordidnotaffectthejudgment < andthattheevidencesupportsthejurysdecisionregardingtheexistenceandamountofincidental ( damages.   Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmed     #UXɸ#XX.UWilliamC.Koch,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichBenH._Cantrell_,P.J.,M.S.,  andWilliamB.Cain,J.,joined. p   PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter,andWilliamE.James,SeniorCounsel, H"" Chattanooga,Tennessee,fortheappellant,TennesseeDepartmentofTransportation. 4#t# L.ThomasAustin,Dunlap,Tennessee,fortheappellees,JohnH.Wheeler,Sr.,NonaC.Wheeler,  %L!% SallyF.Wheeler,NicholasL.Wheeler,JannaL.WheelerRobbs,JackM.Wheeler,CindyA. %8"& Wheeler,ThurmanDavis,EliseDavis,ThurstonDavis,andAlineDavis. &$#' >  OPINION #UXXm #XXU ($) #UXXɷ#  XXU@) I.  *&+   InNovember1979,JohnandNonaWheelerboughta332acrefarmadjacenttoBrushCreek l,(- innorthern_Sequatchie_ԀCounty.Mr.Wheeler,alifelongfarmer,rowcroppedtheland,raisingcorn, X-). soybeans,andwheat.InOctober1983,theTennesseeDepartmentofTransportationfileda D.*/ condemnationproceedingintheCircuitCourtfor_Sequatchie_ԀCountyseekingtocondemn12.886 0/p+0 _acresoftheWheelersfarmtoconstructatwolanehighwayreferredtoas CorridorJ. #  1      ׀Thetract  takenbytheDepartmenteffectivelybisectedtheWheelersfarm.One86.09acretractwasnorth  ofCorridorJ,andtwoseparatetractstotaling233acresweresouthofCorridorJ. #  2          TheportionoftheCorridorJprojectaffectingtheWheelersfarminvolvednotonlythe p constructionofaportionofthetwolane,restrictedaccessundividedhighwaybutalsothe \ constructionofa132footbridgespanningBrushCreekandthecondemnedproperty.Inaddition H  totheroadandbridge,theDepartmentconstructedseveralotherimprovementstofacilitatedrainage 4 t fromonesideoftheroadtoanother,includingatripleboxculvertandathirtyinchpipebeneaththe  ` newroad.  L    ThedamagesportionofthecondemnationproceedingswasnottrieduntilMay1998,after  $  theconstructionprojecthadbeencompleted.Atissueinthisproceedingwerethefairmarketvalue   ofthe12.886acresthatwereactuallytakenandtheamountofincidentaldamagestotheremainder   oftheWheelersfarm.Thepartiesstipulatedattrialthatthefairmarketvalueoftheproperty   actuallytakenwas$18,040;however,theywereunabletoagreeonwhethertheremainderofthe   propertyhadbeenincidentallydamagedand,ifso,howmuchthesedamageswere.    TheDepartmentinsistedthattheWheelersfarmwaslowlyingbottomlandlocatedina X floodplainandthatthepropertyhadbeensubjecttofrequentfloodingandthedepositofrock,sand, D andgravelbeforetheconstructionoftheroadandbridge.Itassertedthattheconstructionoftheroad 0p andbridgehadcausedlittleadditionaldamagetotheWheelersfarm,althoughitconceded(1)that \ theroadandbridgecausedthewatertorisetoagreatdepthontenacresofthepropertytothenorth H oftheroadand(2)thattheimprovementsslightlyincreasedthevelocityofthewaterdownstream 4 fromthebridgeforapproximatelythirtyfeetbeyondtherightofway.TheDepartmentarguedthat   theprojecthadcaused$5,250indamagestotheWheelersremainingproperty.     TheWheelersassessmentoftheirincidentaldamagesdifferedsignificantlyfromtheStates.  Theyinsistedthattheirpropertydidnotfloodveryoftenpriortotheconstructionoftheroadand  bridgeandthatthefloodingwasgentlewhenBrushCreekoverranitsbanks.Theyassertedthatthe | constructionoftheroadandbridgehadcreatedadameffectonBrushCreekcausingmorefrequent h flooding.Theyalsoassertedthattheroadimprovementscausedragingfloodwatersthatdeposited T  largequantitiesofstones,sand,andgravelontheirpropertyandthatthebifurcationoftheirfarmhad @!  causedthemsignificantseverancedamages.Tosupporttheirclaims,theWheelersintroduced ,"l! photographsandavideotaperecordingdepictingtheeffectsoffourseparatefloodingincidents #X" occurringafterthecompletionoftheroadandbridge.Mr.Wheelertestifiedthattheeffectsofthe $D # constructionoftheroadandbridgehadsubstantiallydecreasedthefarmsvalueby$200,970to $0!$ $233,000. %"%   &#&   AjuryreturnedaverdictawardingtheWheelers$18,040forthe12.886acresofproperty   actuallytakenand$200,000inincidentaldamages.Thetrialcourtapprovedtheverdictafter  denyingtheDepartmentsmotionforanewtrialor,inthealternative,foraremittitur.Onthis  appeal,theDepartmentinsiststhattheverdictmustbevacatedbecausethetrialcourterredby  permittingtheWheelerstopresentinadmissibleexpertopinionevidenceregardingtheeffectofthe p constructionoftheroadandbridgeonthevalueoftheirproperty.TheDepartmentalsoassertsthat \ therecordcontainsno materialorcredibleevidenceofincidentaldamagestotheWheelers H  propertyandthattheamountoftheverdictwassoexcessivethatitreflectsthejuryspassion, 4 t prejudice,andcaprice.  ` @) II.   8  @  TheAdmissibilityoftheWheelersExpertsValuationOpinion   $    TheWheelersproofconsistedofthetestimonyofthreepersonsinadditiontoMr.Wheeler   himself.OneofthesewitnesseswasJerryHarris,therealestatebrokerwhohandledthesaleofthe   propertytotheWheelersin1979.SometimeafterthiscondemnationproceedingbeganinNovember   1983,Mr.HarrismovedawayfromTennesseeandallowedhisTennesseelicenseasarealestate  brokertolapse.TheWheelersproposedtocallMr.Harrisnotonlyasafactwitnessbutalsoto l renderanexpertopinionregardingtheeffectoftheconstructionoftheroadandbridgeonthevalue X oftheWheelersremainingproperty. D   TheDepartmentobjectedtoallowingMr.Harristogiveavaluationopinionontheground \ thatstatelawpermittedonlycertifiedrealestateappraisersandlicensedrealestatebrokersto H appraisethevalueofrealpropertyinTennessee.TheDepartmentinsistedthatMr.Harriswasnot 4 competenttorenderavaluationopinionbecausehewasnotlicensedinTennesseeasarealestate   brokeratthetimeoftrial.TheWheelersrespondedthatTenn.R.Evid.702effectivelytrumpedthe   statutorylicensurerequirementandthatMr.Harrisqualifiedasanexpertbasedonhisknowledge,  skill,experience,andeducation.ThetrialcourtoverruledtheDepartmentsobjection,reasoningthat  Mr.Harriswascompetenttogiveanexpertvaluationopinionbecausehehadbeenalicensedreal  estatebrokerinTennesseein1983whenthecondemnationproceedingwasfiled. |   TheWheelersdonottakeissuewiththeDepartmentsargumentonappealthatTennessee T  statutesprohibitpersonswhoarenotlicensedeitherasacertifiedrealestateappraiserorasareal @!  estatebrokertogiveanopinionregardingthevalueofrealpropertylocatedinTennessee.# #  3      ׀However, ,"l! theyinsistthatTenn.R.Evid.702supercedesthesestatutesandpermitstrialcourts,intheir #X" discretion,topermitnonlicensedpersonstogiveavaluationopinionasalongastheydemonstrate $D # thattheyarequalifiedtodosobasedontheirknowledge,skill,experience,training,oreducation. $0!$ Tosupporttheirposition,theycitedecisionsfromMississippiandWestVirginiaupholdingatrial %"% courtsdecisiontopermitunlicensedpersonstotestifyasexpertappraisers.Wattsv.Lawrence,703 &#& So.2d236(Miss.1997);Teterv.OldColonyCo.,441S.E.2d728(W.Va.1994). '#' Ї  ThedecisionsofthecourtsinMississippiandWestVirginiaarenotrelevanttoTennessee  proceedingsbecausetherelationshipbetweentherulesofevidenceandcontrarystatutory  requirementsinthesetwostatesdiffersfromtherelationshipbetweentheTennesseeRulesof  Evidenceandcontrarystatutoryprovisions.InbothMississippiandWestVirginia,therulesof  evidencecontroloverconflictingstatutoryrequirements.Miss.R.Evid.1103;W.Va.R.Evid.101; p Whitehurstv.State,540So.2d1319,132324(Miss.1989);Statev.Derr,451S.E.2d731,743(W. \ Va.1994).InTennessee,however,statutoryrequirementscontrolovertheTennesseeRulesof H  Evidence.Tenn.R.Evid.101clearlystatesthat [t]heserulesshallgovernevidencerulingsinall 4 t trialcourtsofTennesseeexceptasotherwiseprovidedbystatuteorrulesoftheSupremeCourtof  ` Tennessee.  L    ApplyingTennesseelaw,aswemust,weconcludethatpersonsseekingtogiveanexpert  $  opinionregardingthevalueofrealpropertylocatedinTennesseemustmeetboththespecific   statutoryrequirementsofTenn.CodeAnn.6239103(a)andthegeneralrequirementsofTenn.   R.Evid.702atthetimetheyarecalledupontotestifyregardingtheirexpertopinion.Accordingly,   thetrialcourterredbypermittingMr.Harristogiveanexpertopinionregardingthevalueofthe   WheelersfarmbecauseMr.Harriswasnolongeralicensedrealestatebrokerwhenhetestified.    ConcludingthatthetrialcourterredbypermittingMr.Harristogiveavaluationopiniondoes X notnecessarilyendthematter.Noteveryerroneousadmissionofevidencerequiresreversal.Afinal D judgmentshouldbesetasideonlywhentheerrormoreprobablythannotaffectedthejudgment. 0p Tenn.R.App.P.36(b);Statev.Hampton,24S.W.3d823,830(Tenn.Crim.App.2000);Keithv. \ MurfreesboroLivestockMarket,780S.W.2d751,758(Tenn.Ct.App.1989).Whetheranerrorin H admittingevidenceissufficientlyprejudicialtorequirereversaldependsontheevidencessubstance, 4 itsrelationtootherevidence,andeachcasespeculiarfacts.Blankenshipv.State,219Tenn.355,   360,410S.W.2d159,161(1966).Aswewilldiscussinouranalysisoftheevidentiarysupportfor   thejurysassessmentoftheamountoftheWheelersincidentaldamages,wehaveconcludedthat  theerroneousadmissionofMr.Harrissvaluationopinion,moreprobablythannot,hadnegligible  effectonthejurysassessmentofincidentaldamagesinthiscase.  @^^( III.  h @SS  EvidentiarySupportfortheExistenceofIncidentalDamages  T    TheDepartmentarguesthattherecordcontainsnocrediblematerialevidencethatthe ,"l! constructionoftheroadandbridgecausedfloodrelateddamagetotheWheelersremainingproperty #X" onthesouthsideofthenewroad. #  4      ׀ItinsiststhatthiscourtshouldnowdiscounttheWheelers $D # evidenceregardingthefloodingontheirpropertysouthofthenewroadbecauseitisinherently $0!$ improbableandis absolutelyatvariancewithwellestablishedanduniversallyrecognizedphysical %"% laws.WhiletheWheelersevidenceregardingfloodingiscertainlyatoddswiththetestimonyof &#& theDepartmentsengineer,wedonotfindittobeimpossibleorpalpablyimprobable. '#' Ї@) A.     Whenreviewingtheevidentiaryfoundationofajurysverdict,ourtaskunderTenn.R.App.  P.13(d)istoreviewtherecordtodeterminewhetheritcontainsanymaterialevidencetosupport  thejury'sverdict.Wedonotreweightheevidence.Barnesv.GoodyearTire&RubberCo.,48 p S.W.3d698,704(Tenn.2000);Rossv.VanderbiltUniv.Med.Ctr.,27S.W.3d523,530(Tenn.Ct. \ App.2000).Rather,wetakethestrongestlegitimateviewoftheevidencethatfavorstheverdict, H  Millsv.Solomon,43S.W.3d503,50708(Tenn.Ct.App.2000);Woodsv.HermanWalldorf&Co., 4 t 26S.W.3d868,874(Tenn.Ct.App.1999),andweaffirmtheverdictiftherecordcontainsany  ` materialevidencetosupportit.NextGeneration,Inc.v.WalMart,Inc.,49S.W.3d860,863(Tenn.  L  Ct.App.2000).  8    WhenweuseTenn.R.App.P.13(d)toexaminetherecordofajurytrial,wemustkeepin   mindthattheresponsibilityforassessingtheweight,faith,andcredibilitytobegiventhewitnesses   lieswiththetrieroffactandthatthetrieroffact'sdecisionsonthesemattersmustbegivengreat   weightonappeal.McCarleyv.WestQualityFoodServ.,960S.W.2d585,588(Tenn.1998);Kim   v.Boucher,55S.W.3d551,555(Tenn.Ct.App.2001);Kinnardv.Taylor,39S.W.3d120,122  (Tenn.Ct.App.2000).Accordingly,wewillneitherreevaluatethewitnesses'credibilityonappeal, l Reynoldsv.OzarkMotorLines,Inc.,887S.W.2d822,823(Tenn.1994);Grissomv.Metropolitan X Gov't,817S.W.2d679,684(Tenn.Ct.App.1991),norwillweanalyzetheconflictingevidenceto D determinewherethetruthlies.D.M.Rose&Co.v.Snyder,185Tenn.499,508,206S.W.2d897, 0p 901(1947);Goodmanv.BalthropConstr.Co.,626S.W.2d21,24(Tenn.Ct.App.1981). \   DespiteTenn.R.App.P.13(d)sdeferentialstandardforreviewingthefactualfoundation 4 ofajurysverdict,theappellatecourtsarenotrequiredto passivelysitbyandallowpatently   impossible,incoherent,orperjuredtestimonytosupportajuryverdict.Lowev.PreferredTruck   Leasing,Inc.,528S.W.2d38,41(Tenn.Ct.App.1975).Evidenceis materialforthepurposes  ofTenn.R.App.P.13(d)onlyifitiscredible.Thus,whenassayingtheevidentiarysupportfora  jurysverdict,theappellatecourtsmaydisregardtestimonythatcannotpossiblybetrue,thatis  inherentlyunbelievable,orthatisopposedtonaturallaws.Gilbreathv.Herring,No.02A019311 | CV00239,1994WL591766,at*4(Tenn.Ct.App.Oct.31,1994)(NoTenn.R.App.P.11 h applicationfiled);Nelmsv.TennesseeFarmersMut.Ins.Co.,613S.W.2d481,483(Tenn.Ct.App. T  1978). @!    Testimonythatisentirelyinconsistentwithundisputedphysicalfactsisonevarietyof #X" evidencethatappellatecourtsmaydisregard.McCrayv.Hughes,53Tenn.App.533,538,385 $D # S.W.2d124,126(1964);GordonsTransps.,Inc.v.Bailey,41Tenn.App.365,402,294S.W.2d $0!$ 313,330(1956).However,whilethis physicalfactsrulemaybeinvokedinbothcriminaland %"% civilproceedings,itshouldbeusedwithgreatcautionbecauseoftheriskofinvadingtheprovince &#& ofthejury.Statev.Hornsby,858S.W.2d892,895(Tenn.1993).Underthephysicalfactsrule, '#' challengedtestimonymaybedisregardedonlywhenitisinconsistentwith wellestablishedand ($( universallyrecognizedlaws,Statev.Radley,29S.W.3d532,535n.4(Tenn.Crim.App.1999); )%) Nelmsv.TennesseeFarmersMut.Ins.Co.,613S.W.2dat483,andwhenitis inherently x*&* improbableandimpossibleofbelief.Statev.Hornsby,858S.W.2dat895;Nashville,Chattanooga d+'+ &St.LouisR.R.v.Justice,5Tenn.Civ.App.69,71(1914)(holdingthatappellatecourtsmay P,(, disregardimpossibleorpalpablyimprobabletestimony). <-|)- Ї@) B.     TheDepartmentassertsthatweshouldinvokethephysicalfactsruletodisregardthe  testimonypresentedbytheWheelers.Asbestwecandetermine,thewellestablishedanduniversally  recognizedlawsonwhichtheDepartmentreliesconsistofthe commonknowledgethatcreeks p forminginmountainsanddescendingintovalleysmay,duringperiodsofheavyrain,becomeprone \ tofloodandspilloutontolowlands.Thisisespeciallysointhewinterandspring,asinthiscase. H  Evenifweweretotreatthepossibilitythatmountainstreamsmightoverflowtheirbanksduring 4 t periodsofheavyrainasa wellestablishedanduniversallyrecognizedphysicallaw,wedonotfind  ` thetestimonyofferedbytheWheelersregardingthefloodingoftheirpropertytobeentirely  L  inconsistentwiththisproposition.  8    TheWheelersdidnotargueattrialthatBrushCreekneverfloodedtheirpropertybeforethe   constructionoftheroadandbridge.Theirargumentwassimplythattheconstructionoftheroadand   bridgecausedtheirpropertytobemorepronetoflooding.Theyalsoarguedthatthevelocityofthe   floodwatersisgreaterthanithadbeeninthepastandthatincreasedforceofthefloodwatershas   resultedinincreaseddamagetotheirproperty.Theirevidencesupportingtheseclaimsisnot  completelyinconsistentwithanysortofnaturallawregardingthebehaviorofmountainstreamsand, l accordingly,wedeclinetoinvokethephysicalfactsruletodisregardit. X   TheWheelerspresentedeyewitnessaccounts,photographs,andavideotaperecordingofthe 0p floodingbothupstreamanddownstreamofthenewroadandbridgealongwithexperttestimony \ regardingtheincreasedvelocityofthewatercausedbytheconstruction.Thisevidenceshowed H floodwaterseighttoninefeethighcoveringthepropertynorthoftheroadthathadwashedawayan 4 existingtreeline.Italsoshowedhowthedammingeffectoftheroadandbridgecausethewateron   thenorthsideoftheroadtorunacrossthenorthsideoftheproperty,downtheroad,andontothe   propertyonthesouthsideoftheroad.Theevidencealsoshowedhowthehighwaterhadpushed  debrisconsistingofrocksandpavementfromtheroadthroughtheboxculvertandontotheproperty  southoftheroad.AllthisevidenceregardingthefloodingoftheWheelerspropertyandtheeffects  ofthefloodingwasrelevanttotheWheelersclaimforincidentaldamagesandprovidedthejury | withmaterialevidenceuponwhichtobaseitsverdict. h   Inadditiontotheevidenceregardingtheflooding,theWheelerspresentedmaterialevidence @!  regardingtheseverancedamagetotheirfarm.Beforetheconstructionoftheroad,theirfarmwas ,"l! acontiguoustractofland.Mr.Wheelertestifiedthatworkingthefarmwasmoredifficultafterthe #X" roadbisecteditintotwotracts.Heexplainedhowhewasrequiredtoleavehispropertyandtravel $D # downthenewroadtoreachtherestofhisproperty.Healsodescribedhowhewasrequiredtodrill $0!$ anewwelltoservethepropertynorthofthenewroadbecausethespringhehadusedpriortothe %"% constructionoftheroadwasonthepropertysouthoftheroad.Thisevidence,liketheevidence &#& regardingtheflooding,providedthejurywithasatisfactoryevidentiarybasisforawardingincidental '#' damages. ($(  <-|)- @dd) IV.   @e e  TheAmountoftheIncidentalDamageAward     Finally,theDepartmenttakesissuewiththeamountofthejurysverdict.Itassertsthatthe  $200,000awardofincidentaldamagesissoexcessivethatitreflectsthejuryspassion,prejudice, p andcaprice.Afterconsideringtherecordasawhole,wehavedeterminedthattheadmissionofthe \ valuationevidenceofferedbytherealestatebrokerwhowasnolongerlicensedinTennessee,more H  probablythannot,didnotinfluencetheamountoftheincidentaldamageaward.Afterdisregarding 4 t thisevidence,wehavedeterminedthattheincidentaldamageawardiswithintherangeof  ` reasonablenessestablishedbythecompetentevidence.  L  @) A.   $    Thepropermeasureofincidentaldamagestoaremainingtractofrealpropertyfollowinga   partialtakingisthedeclineinthefairmarketvalueoftheremainingpropertycausedbythetaking.   CityofMemphisv.Hood,208Tenn.319,327,345S.W.2d887,891(1961);ShelbyCountyv.   KingswayGreensofAm.,Inc.,706S.W.2d634,638(Tenn.Ct.App.1985).Theamountof  incidentaldamagestobeawardedisajuryquestion,andunlesstheawardis showntobewholly l unfairandunreasonable,itwillnotbedisturbedonappeal.DavidsonCountyBd.ofEduc.v.First X Am.NatlBank,202Tenn.9,22,301S.W.2d905,911(1957).Incondemnationcases,asinother D civilcases,wemusttakethestrongestlegitimateviewoftheevidencefavoringtheprevailingparty, 0p discardingthecontraryevidence,andallowallreasonableinferencestoupholdthejurysverdict. \ SmithCountyv.Eatherly,820S.W.2d366,369(Tenn.Ct.App.1991). H   Damageawardsincondemnationcasescannotoutstriptheevidence.Theamountofthese   awardsmustbebasedontheevidencepresentedandcannotbetheresultofthejuryspassion,   prejudice,orcaprice.ShelbyCountyv.MidSouthTitleCo.,615S.W.2d677,68081(Tenn.Ct.  App.1980);Stateexrel.Shawv.Shofner,573S.W.2d169,174(Tenn.Ct.App.1978).  Accordingly,appellatecourtswilldeclinetoaffirmadamageawardthatisbeyondanyreasonable  viewoftheevidence.Magnessv.B.HittElec.Co.,604S.W.2d44,46(Tenn.1980).However, | whenthecredibleevidenceestablishesa rangeofreasonableness  #  5      ׀forthedamagesinajurycase, h theappellatecourtswillnotdisturbajurysdamageawardifitfallswithintherangeof T  reasonablenessbecause itistheexclusiveprovinceofthejurytoassessdamageswithintherange @!  ofreasonablenessestablishedbythecredibleproof.Smithv.Shelton,569S.W.2d421,427(Tenn. ,"l! 1978). #X" @) B.  $0!$   ThreewitnessestestifiedaboutthediminishedfairmarketvalueoftheWheelersremaining &#& property.Mr.Wheelertestifiedthatthevalueofhisfarmhaddecreasedby45to50%which '#'  amountedtomonetarydamagesbetween$200,900and$223,379.TheDepartmentsappraiser ($( placedthemonetaryvalueoftheincidentaldamagestotheWheelersremainingpropertyat$5,250. #  6      ׀   Thethirdwitness,therealestatebrokerwhoseTennesseelicensehadlapsed,testifiedthatthe  constructionhaddiminishedthevalueoftheWheelersremainingpropertyby40%orapproximately  $178,073.    WehavealreadyconcludedinSectionIIthatthetrialcourtshouldnothavepermittedthe \ unlicensedrealestateagenttogiveanopinionregardingtheeffectoftheconstructionprojectonthe H  valueoftheWheelersremainingproperty.Accordingly,thistestimonymustbecompletely 4 t disregardedandcannotbeusedtoestablishtherangeofreasonablenesswithregardtotheincidental  ` damages.Becausethiswitnessstestimonyregardingtheamountoftheincidentaldamageswasless  L  thanMr.Wheelerscalculationoftheincidentaldamages,weconcludethattheerroneouslyadmitted  8  testimony,moreprobablythannot,didnotinfluencethejuryscalculationoftheincidentaldamages.  $    ThecompetentevidenceregardingthemeasureoftheWheelersincidentaldamagesranged   from$5,250to$223,379.ThejuryobviouslyaccreditedMr.Wheelerstestimonyregardingthe   damagetohisremainingpropertybecauseitusedaroundeddownversionofhislowerestimateto   settheWheelersdamages.Mr.Wheelerstestimonywasbuttressedbydramaticphotographicand  videotapedevidenceofpostconstructionfloodingontheproperty.Barringanerroroflaw,ajurys l awardofincidentaldamagesthatfallswithintherangeofreasonablenessestablishedbytheevidence X willnotbesetasideonappeal.InlightofMr.Wheelerstestimonyregardingthedeclineinthefair D marketvalueofhisownproperty,wefindthatthejurysdecisiontoawardtheWheelers$200,000 0p inincidentaldamagesissupportedbymaterialevidenceanddoesnotreflectthatpassion,prejudice, \ orcapriceonthejuryspart. H @) V.      Forthereasonsstatedherein,weaffirmthejudgmentawardingtheWheelers$197,840in  additiontothefundstheDepartmenthadalreadypaidintocourtandremandthecasetothetrial  courtforwhateverfurtherproceedingsmayberequired.WetaxthecostsofthisappealtotheState  ofTennessee. |    `     h     _____________________________ ,"l!    `     h     WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE