Opinion ID: 1232858
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Additional Assignments

Text: In addition to the matters we have discussed, the state also claims the trial court erred in denying a motion by appellant to withdraw a stipulation that crossing a double yellow line is a misdemeanor; and in refusing appellant's requested Instruction A. The requested instruction referred to was this: The jury is instructed that the parties have stipulated that there are double yellow lines, as traffic regulations, immediately in front of the exit of the present access to the landowners property; that crossing of same is a misdemeanor. However, you are instructed that traffic regulations such as no left turns are not to be considered as an interference with the abbutting property owner's right of access. The Attorney General's office says it discovered, after the state's evidence had been presented to the jury, that the crossing of a double yellow line is not a misdemeanor; that erroneous stipulations as to the law are not binding on a court; and the state should have been permitted to withdraw the stipulation. The parties on both sides agree that double yellow lines have no bearing in this case except that Peters' temporary access, during the period of construction only, was on the slope of a hill where highway officials had placed double yellow lines. The Commission argues, and its attorneys cite extensive authority for the proposition, that since the double lines were temporary in nature and since they were placed on the highway for safety purposes under the police powers of the state, compensation could not be allowed for inconvenience during the course of construction. It is also pointed out that all questions of double yellow lines are directed to areas off the land of appellees and deal with traffic control and safety. We accept appellant's proposition that inconvenience resulting from construction work which is temporary and reasonable in its character and which is intended for public safety and convenience is an inconvenience which property owners share with the general public; and compensation for such inconvenience is not allowable as long as the obstructions are temporary and reasonable. See Hadfield v. State ex rel. Burns, 86 Idaho 561, 388 P.2d 1018, 1021; and Rymkevitch v. State, 42 Misc.2d 1021, 249 N.Y.S.2d 514, 519. But we have no reason to believe allowance was made for inconvenience to Mr. and Mrs. Peters on account of double yellow lines. Counsel has not pointed out anything in the record which would so indicate, and it is not claimed that any witness, who testified as to damages, included any such item. We cannot believe the verdict of the jury was substantially increased on account of the stipulation which plaintiff-appellant sought to withdraw. Since we accept appellant's proposition concerning the double yellow lines during the period of construction, we are forced to conclude that there would have been no justification for the court to dignify this aspect of the case by giving such an instruction. In any event, the Highway Commission has not shown that it was prejudiced by the refusal of the requested instruction. We think the Highway Commission has not shown that it was prejudiced by a denial of the motion to withdraw its stipulation, nor by a refusal of the requested instruction. We conclude in general that reversible error has not been shown and the judgment of the district court should stand. Affirmed.