California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI) (2017)

3515. Valuation Testimony

Download PDF
3515.Valuation Testimony
You must decide the value of property based solely on the testimony of
the witnesses who have given their opinion of fair market value. You
may consider other evidence only to help you understand and weigh the
testimony of those witnesses.
You may find the same fair market value testified to by a witness, or
you may find a value anywhere between the highest and lowest values
stated by the witnesses.
If the witnesses disagreed with one another, you should weigh each
opinion against the others based on the reasons given for each opinion,
the facts or other matters that each witness relied on, and the witnesses’
New September 2003
Sources and Authority
• Evidence of Value of Property. Evidence Code section 813(a).
• “The only type of evidence which can be used to establish value in eminent
domain cases is the opinion of qualified experts and the property owners.”
(Aetna Life and Casualty Co. v. City of Los Angeles (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d
865, 877 [216 Cal.Rptr. 831], internal citations omitted.)
• “A jury hearing a condemnation action may not disregard the evidence as to
value and render a verdict which either exceeds or falls below the limits
established by the testimony of the witnesses. The trier of fact in an eminent
domain action is not an appraiser, and does not make a determination of market
value based on its opinion thereof. Instead it determines the market value of the
property, based on the opinions of the valuation witnesses.” (Aetna Life and
Casualty Co., supra, 170 Cal.App.3d at p. 877, internal citations omitted.)
• “ ‘The trier of fact may accept the evidence of any one expert or choose a
figure between them based on all of the evidence.’ There is insufficient evidence
to support a verdict ‘only when “no reasonable interpretation of the record”
supports the figure . . . .’ ” (San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Bd.
v. Cushman (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 918, 931 [62 Cal.Rptr.2d 121], internal
citations omitted.)
Secondary Sources
1 Witkin, California Evidence (4th ed. 2000) Opinion Evidence, § 102
1Condemnation Practice in California (Cont.Ed.Bar 3d ed.) §§ 9.62–9.64
5 Nichols on Eminent Domain, Ch. 23, Expert and Opinion Evidence,
§§ 23.01–23.11 (Matthew Bender)