WPI 150.04 Burden of Proof

In a direct condemnation action, after the condemning agency satisfies its burden of going forward with evidence of value, neither party has the burden of proof and no instruction should be given. State v. Amunsis, 61 Wn.2d 160, 377 P.2d 462 (1963). In an action in which the value of special benefits is an issue, the rule stated in Amunsis applies. State v. Templeman, 39 Wn.App. 218, 224, 693 P.2d 125 (1984). Nevertheless, the petitioner is accorded the right to open and close. State v. Washington Horse Breeders Ass'n, 64 Wn.2d 756, 394 P.2d 218 (1964).

In an inverse condemnation action, however, the burden of proof has been allocated between the condemning agency and the property owner as to particular issues. See, e.g., Kahuna Land Co. v. Spokane County, 94 Wn.App. 836, 841, 974 P.2d 1249 (1999) (property owner has burden of proving destruction of a fundamental attribute of property ownership); Burton v. Clark County, 91 Wn.App. 505, 516–17, 958 P.2d 343 (1998) (government has burden of proving a proper exercise of its police power, thereby justifying a taking). See also Keene Valley Ventures, Inc. v. City of Richland, 174 Wn.App. 219, 226, 298 P.3d 121 (property owner in an inverse condemnation case has burden of proving actual damages). Appropriate instructions in inverse condemnation cases may be adapted from the instructions in WPI Chapter 21 (Burden of Proof).