Opinion ID: 852801
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Right of Way Statute

Text: Indiana Gas contends that it was entitled to lay its pipes by virtue of a different section of the Code: Public and municipally owned utilities are authorized to construct, operate, and maintain their poles, facilities, appliances, and fixtures upon, along, under, and across any of the public roads, highways, and waters outside of municipalities, as long as they do not interfere with the ordinary and normal public use of the roadway . . .. Ind. Code Ann. § 8-20-1-28 (West 2001). Indiana Gas is, of course, a public utility. Section 28 therefore seems, in relatively straightforward terms, to authorize it to enter upon the county rightof-way and install the pipe along the roadway. Over several generations, the courts have understood this statute as contemplating that the public utility would not need to compensate the landowner, inasmuch as such a use does not place an additional burden on the subservient land. As we said in Fox v. Ohio Valley Gas Corp.: At the time easements for our early highways were condemned, the way was used for the passage of foot passengers, animals, and animal-drawn conveyances only, and yet, as gas for fuel, telephones, and electricity came into use, the easements were construed as intended to be broad enough to permit the laying of pipes and the installation of poles and wires in, upon, and under the streets and highways, and it was concluded that such a use cast no burden upon the fee beyond that which was contemplated and paid for in the original taking. 2 Furthermore, because the statute does not apply, it was error for the trial court to dismiss the license, quantum meruit and quantum valebant counts for lack of subject matter based upon the statute. 6 250 Ind. 111, 118, 235 N.E.2d 168, 172 (1968) (quoting New York Cent. R.R. Co. v. Yarian, 219 Ind. 477, 484-85, 39 N.E.2d 604, 606 (1942)) (emphasis added). See also Deetz v. Northern Ind. Fuel & Light Co., 545 N.E.2d 1103 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989)(gas company did not need landowner’s consent to install pipeline in county right-of-way and landowner did not suffer any legal damages from such installation). The nature of the Railroad’s interest in the land transversed by the county right-of-way does not affect this result. In Fox the court held that a fee owner was not entitled to additional compensation when a gas company laid pipe in the county right-of-way that crossed his land. Fox, 250 Ind. at 117-19, 235 N.E.2d at 172-73. If the Railroad owns the land in fee, Fox applies directly, and the Railroad is not entitled to compensation beyond what it, or its predecessor in interest, received when the right-of-way was established. If the Railroad possesses an easement, it does not posses rights greater than that of the underlying fee owner. These are among the reasons we observed above that deciding the nature of the Railroad’s interest was not pivotal to resolution of the present case. Because Indiana Gas was authorized both by statute and by Fox to enter onto the county right-of-way to install the pipe, summary judgment in favor of Indiana Gas on the trespass count was appropriate, and we therefore affirm it. Similarly, because the statutorily authorized pipeline does not place an additional burden on the land, the Railroad is not entitled to compensation, and the trial court should have granted summary judgment in favor of Indiana Gas on the license rent issue. 3 Having said that, we observe that section 28 makes the user responsible for burdens it imposes on the “ordinary and normal public use of the roadway.” § 8-20-1-28. We presume that common law precepts would likewise serve to protect the interests of the Railroad in the continued peaceful and efficient use of its tracks to facilitate commerce. For these reasons, consultation about the nature and timing of construction at such intersections is obviously in the 3 The quantum meruit and quantum valebant counts seem aimed mostly toward the same types of relief as the license rent and trespass claims and are likely resolvable on similar grounds, but Indiana Gas did not seek summary judgment on those counts. Those counts were not subject to dismissal on grounds they should have been submitted to the IURC. 7 best financial interest of all concerned (as utility company signs sometimes say, “Call before you dig.”).