Opinion ID: 1379909
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Is Loss of Visibility Due to Changes on Parcel 59 Compensable?[5]

Text: Unlike the building of the earth berms, the widening and lowering of Dimond Boulevard was accomplished through the taking of part of Dimond D's property, Parcel 59. This distinction is significant. Ownership of land gives the owner the right and ability to limit any obstructions from being placed on that land. In particular, ownership of land abutting on a road gives the owner the right to control the visibility of all adjoining land further off the road. This obviously can be an important commercial asset. Thus when the state takes a parcel which abuts the road, it also takes the potentially valuable right to control the visibility of the remaining parcel. For this reason, we believe that the best rule in light of reason and policy is that loss of visibility to a remaining parcel is compensable where that loss is due to changes made on the parcel taken by the state. [6] Cases from other jurisdictions lend general support for this position. The California case of People v. Ricciardi, 23 Cal.2d 390, 144 P.2d 799 (1943), also involved the partial taking of commercial land for the purpose of separating the grade of a street and a railroad. The effect was to block completely the visibility of the landowner's remaining parcel from the traffic travelling through the underpass. The California Supreme Court recognized an easement of reasonable view of the remaining parcel from the highway. Id. 144 P.2d at 806. [7] Courts in other jurisdictions have reached similar conclusions. See Murphy, Inc. v. Town of Westport, 131 Conn. 292, 40 A.2d 177, 183 (1944); Kelbro, Inc. v. Myrick, 113 Vt. 64, 30 A.2d 527, 530 (1943); North Carolina State Highway Comm'n v. English, 20 N.C. App. 20, 200 S.E.2d 429, 432-33 (1973); Bramson v. Berea, 33 Ohio Misc. 186, 293 N.E.2d 577, 583 (C.P. 1971); see also 39 Am.Jur.2d, Highways, Streets, and Bridges § 173 at 548-49 (1968). In addition to those courts which recognize a right of visibility, many courts recognize a right of view from a remaining parcel. At least some of these courts rely on the same reasoning we use here, i.e., a landowner is entitled to compensation for the reduced value of the remaining parcel caused by an obstruction placed on the taken parcel. See, e.g., La Plata Elec. Ass'n v. Cummings, 728 P.2d 696 (Colo. 1986) (landowner who had portion of property condemned for purpose of constructing an electric power line was entitled to compensation for reduction in the value of the remainder of property resulting from aesthetic damage and loss of view); Pierpont Inn, Inc. v. State, 70 Cal.2d 282, 74 Cal. Rptr. 521, 449 P.2d 737, 745-46 (1969) (trial court did not err in permitting jury to consider the loss of view and relatively unrestricted access to the beach resulting from state's taking of part of larger parcel for freeway); Dennison v. State, 22 N.Y.2d 409, 293 N.Y.S.2d 68, 69-71, 239 N.E.2d 708, 709-10 (1968); Miller Levee Dist. No. 2 v. Wright, 195 Ark. 295, 111 S.W.2d 469, 472 (1937). See generally Annotation, Eminent Domain: Compensability of Loss of View From Owner's Property  State Cases, 25 A.L.R.4th 671, §§ 3-4, at 675-82 (1983). The cases cited by the state against compensation for loss of visibility under any circumstances fail to persuade us. Several courts have denied compensation on the ground that since landowners have no right to traffic flow, [8] they cannot have the right to be seen by traffic. See State ex rel. Missouri Highway & Transportation Comm'n v. Dooley, 738 S.W.2d 457, 469 (Mo. App. 1987); Troiano v. Colorado Department of Highways, 170 Colo. 484, 463 P.2d 448, 455 (1969); Acme Theatres, Inc. v. State, 26 N.Y.2d 385, 310 N.Y.S.2d 496, 498, 258 N.E.2d 912, 914 (1970). These cases overlook the fact that as long as there is a road adjacent to the taken property, part of the value of that property consists of the right to control the visibility of land further away from the road. [9] The state also cites Probasco v. City of Reno, 85 Nev. 563, 459 P.2d 772, 774 (1969) where the court held that an abutting property owner does not have an implied negative easement of light, air, and view across a public street. Probasco, however, involved no physical taking of the abutting owner's property. This, as discussed above, is crucial to any compensation for loss of visibility under our holding today. Filler v. City of Minot, 281 N.W.2d 237 (N.D. 1979) squarely rejects a claim for loss of visibility, yet no substantive reasoning is provided for this position. Finally, the brief language in State v. Lock, 468 S.W.2d 560, 566 (Tex. App. 1971) is apparently dicta. On the question of law before us today, we believe that for the foregoing reasons, the best position is that loss of visibility is compensable in an eminent domain proceeding where the diminished visibility results from changes on the property taken from the landowner, but not where it occurs due to changes on the property of another. Thus we REVERSE the grant of summary judgment and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. [10]