The Bridgeport evening farmer. [volume] (Bridgeport, Conn.) 1866-1917, 1912-04-11
POPE Plus \ IS
VERY MUCH ALIVE
CLUB IS
VICTORIOUS AT
LAST IN SUIT
Supreme Court Finds That
City Must Pay Damages
of $1,2O to Park City
Yacht Club.

Yacht Club.
Finding that the case of the Park
City Yacht Club is an exception to
the general rule, the Supreme Court OF
Errors has settled the clubs 10-year-
old damage suit against the city Of
Bridgeport by rendering decision for
81 200 damages in the clubs favor, as
result of injuries to the clubs prop
efty arising through the construction
Of Yellow Mill bridge and the change
of Stratford avenue In front Of the
clubhouse.
The decision was written by Judge
George w. Wheeler, the other justices
concurring.
the club claimed damages of $500.
but the city board Of appraisa. OF
benefits and damages found On the
contrary that the property had been
improved and assessed the club $l3S.
From this decision and assessment the
club appealed, giving rise to the pres
ent suit.
It was first tried before Judge Ga
ger, who decided in favor of the city,
then appealed to the Supreme court
and sent back for a new trial On
the retrial Judge II. ]. Curtis heard
the evidence and then reserved decis-
ion for advice from the Supreme court,
which now awards $1,000 damages to
the yacht club as the final settlement
Of the case.
The question hinged upon whether
or not the construction Of the bridge
should be considered q part OF the
whole process by which the change
OF layout was made. It was claimed
that the scope Of the action was lin
tied to the widening Of Stratford ave-
1nue, and other physical changes were
not to be considered.
The court holds that in a&eeSsful
damages the effect Of all the physical
changes, and not merely the widening
of the street. should be considered.
The decision goes on .'1 ~
One other question is reserved which
was not specifically included in our
former decision: whether In assessing
damages the diversion Of travel from
passing the plaintiffs premises is an
element to be considered.
AS an abutting owner the plaintiff
has a special and peculiar interest IL
the street fronting his premises. Gull
len VS.. the N. T., n. H. & IT. R. r
Co. 66 Conn. 2N.S.
We have spoken OF these rights col
lectively as the easement of access te
the premises of an owner. Newton
VS. n. Y, N. III. & H. r. r Co.. z;
Conn. 420. 6. z.
1t is a general rule of law that the
owner can recover damages for d1-
rect injury to his right OF access
one which is special and peculiar te
him, differing from a general damage
suffered by him in common with the
public, not merely in degree, but also
in kind.
This right to compensation arises
either through constitutional prohibi-
ton or statutory provisions.
The statutory appeal provided by
section 50 of the charter Of Bridge.
port giving the court the power tt
''confrm, annul or modify the said as
sessments, or make such order in the
premises as equity may require, is
certainly broad enough to include al
cases Of damage within this general
rule. Whether 1t would include cases
not within the rule we need not now
consider.
The vacation of a street closes the
lots fronting upon it and destroys the
owners access.
The vacation of part Of a stree,
does not ordinarily permit recovery
to an owner fronting on another part
of this street.
And this is true, even though it re-
cess, or compel more circultOus
route of access, or a diversion OF
travel in front of the premises and
a consequent diminution of value.
To this general rule there are ex-
ceptions, and the leading case Of
Smith VS.. Boston. Cush. 254. 6. Z, Is
an example Of the application Of the
general rule There. the improve
ment did not change the highway In
front Of the plaintiffs premises. MOI
cut off travel from either direction; II
merely required the distant travel
from the south to take a somewhat
longer course. and affected his prop
erty no differently than all other prop
erty on this street.
The case before US presents an en-
tirely different set Of facts; indeed the
physical changes resulting from this
improvement are of a most unusual
character and make the case clear
exception to the general rule.
The plaintiffs premises are in a cul
de sac and the travelled way remain
ing is so narrow as to prevent ordin-
ary modern travel coming to these
premises unless 1t backs out the 15O
feet to the main highway.
Access to this property by travel
from the west is destroyed. access to
from the east is seriously interfered
with.
All traffic to and fro, in front of the
plaintiffs premises, is absolutely shut
Off.
In many ways this is practical
discontinuance Of the highway.
The vacation of a part of a street
which leaves property abutting on the
remaining part of the street with ac-
cess to the system of streets in either
direction has generally been held to
constitute no actionable injury.
But the vacation Of part Of a
street which destroys all access by
property abutting on the remaining
part of street to the system of streets
in one direction, thus putting the prop
erty in a cul de sac. has generally
been held to constitute an actionable
injury Johnston VS.. Old Colony r.
r. Company, 1S r. T. 642; Chicago VS..
Burcky, 15S ILL.,, 103, 1O9, 110; High
barger VS.. Milford, II Kan, 331, $40;
Lewis on Em. Domain Ord ed) Sec.
~