The trial court did not err in permitting plaintiff to present evidence of the use of the road prior to 1995 when the cable was placed across it. Point II is denied. Logically this would be especially true where the easement is in fact claimed by prescription or user and not by grant. Point III is well taken. That part of the judgment must be reversed and the case remanded with directions that judgment be entered granting plaintiff the right to use the land over which the road passes for purposes of ingress and egress.
Defendant retains title to the property.
That title, however, is subject to plaintiff's easement. Point IV asserts that the trial court erred in not limiting plaintiff's easement to use for recreational purposes by immediate family and friends. That was the purpose for which plaintiff, her family members and other persons she permitted to access her property had used the road. When an easement is claimed by prescription, the character and extent of the easement is determined by the character and extent of use during the period when the easement was created. Point IV is denied.