Opinion ID: 852390
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Medians, Traffic Flow, and State v. Ensley

Text: Indiana law has specifically addressed the damages to adjacent landowners from reconfigured highways. Many of the principles applicable to this case come from this Court's opinion in State v. Ensley, 240 Ind. 472, 164 N.E.2d 342 (1960). In Ensley, the defendant property owners operated a recreational center in Indianapolis. 240 Ind. at 476, 480, 164 N.E.2d at 344, 346. The property was bounded by Keystone Avenue on the east and 62nd Street on the north, with entrances on both streets. Id. at 476, 480-81, 164 N.E.2d at 344, 346. The Keystone entrance was approximately 65 to 68 feet wide and provided access to both northbound and southbound traffic on Keystone Avenue. Id. at 480, 164 N.E.2d at 346. The State condemned a strip of land along the property's eastern border to widen Keystone Avenue. Id. at 476, 164 N.E.2d at 343-44. The State also installed a raised median which prevented northbound traffic from making a left turn to enter from Keystone. Id. at 481, 164 N.E.2d at 346. Northbound motorists on Keystone were required to continue past the property, turn left on 62nd Street, and drive approximately one-half block to enter the property from the 62nd Street entrance. Id. Because of the raised divider strip and subsequent access restrictions, the recreational center's property value allegedly declined. Id. at 479, 164 N.E.2d at 345. The Ensley Court held preliminarily that the median installation did not entitle the defendants to compensation under the Indiana Constitution. Id. at 482, 164 N.E.2d at 346. The Court explained that acts done in the proper exercise of governmental powers and not directly encroaching on private property, although their consequences may impair its use or value, do not constitute a `taking' within the purview of [Indiana Constitution article I, section 21]. Id. Any injury so caused is deemed to be remote and inconsequential, and thus not compensable in the absence of an express statute to the contrary. Id. at 482, 164 N.E.2d at 346-47. Although not phrased in the Lingle language, the substance of this view anticipated a similar standard: any impaired value derived from some action that does not encroach upon the property is not compensable. The property owners in Ensley argued that they were entitled to consequential damages from the median installation under a provision of the then-current eminent domain statute, which was substantially identical to subsection 9(c)(4) of the current version, and allowed compensation for damages from the construction of the improvements in the manner proposed by the plaintiff. Burns Ind. Stat. Ann. § 3-1706 (1946 Repl.). [7] This Court disagreed, explaining that to be compensable, damages must result directly from the taking of some property right. 240 Ind. at 486, 164 N.E.2d at 348. The cited statute provides the measure of damages from a taking of a property right. It does not create a right to compensation where no taking has occurred. The Court held that the fact that access to appellees' property from Keystone Avenue may have been rendered less convenient by the improved highway did not constitute a taking of a property right. Id. The Court further explained that What appellees are actually contending here is that they have a property right in the free and unrestricted flow of traffic passing their premises and any impairment of, or interference with, this alleged right must be compensated. They here are attempting to equate this alleged right with the property right of ingress and egress. The general rule is that there is no property right of an abutting property owner in the free flow of traffic past his property and thus no compensation can be claimed if traffic is diverted from his premises or made to travel a more circuitous route. Id. at 489, 164 N.E.2d at 350. The Court concluded that because the owners had no property right in the free flow of traffic past their premises, the construction of the median did not deprive them of a property right and no compensable taking had occurred. Id. at 490, 164 N.E.2d at 350. The principles announced in Ensley have since been applied and clarified in a series of eminent domain cases dealing with traffic flow issues and rights of ingress/egress. [8] Each of these cases addresses a unique set of facts, but collectively they affirm the distinction first drawn in Ensley: although an elimination of rights of ingress and egress constitutes a compensable taking, the mere reduction in or redirection of traffic flow to a commercial property is not a compensable taking of a property right. See also State v. Dunn, 888 N.E.2d 858, 864-66 (Ind.Ct. App.2008) (explaining the differences between traffic-flow cases and the ingress/egress cases), trans. denied. Here, as in Ensley, the subject property had two points of access. The State appropriated a strip of land from the property to widen an abutting road, and as part of the same project the State constructed a median preventing southbound access through the southern entrance. Moreover, because of the restrictions on new access points along the appropriated strip of land, the owners cannot widen or move the entrances to the property. Neither of the property's existing access points has been eliminated or narrowed as a result of the condemnation. Nor have any of the reconfigurations deprived the owners of their rights of ingress or egress. The only substantive allegation is that traffic flow to the shopping complex has been encumbered. Under Ensley and its progeny, these consequences from the State's roadway improvements are not compensable because no property right has been taken. The Court of Appeals distinguished this case from Ensley by noting that here the State not only constructed a raised median converting Plaza East's southern entrance to a right-in/right-out drive, but also added a merge lane to Green River Road and created unsafe congestion problems at the northern entrance. Kimco, 881 N.E.2d at 995. We agree that the merge lane and northern entrance congestion are two aspects of this case that were not present in Ensley. But neither the merge lane nor the northern entrance congestion affects the fundamental point that these consequences are not attributable to the deprivation of any property right. The Ensley Court held unequivocally that commercial property owners have no property right in the free flow of traffic past their premises. 240 Ind. at 490, 164 N.E.2d at 350. Any difficulty that northbound traffic may experience with the merge lane, and any congestion that may arise at the northern entrance from the permission of left turns, bear only on the issue of public traffic flow through the property and not on Kimco's rights of ingress of egress. Kimco notes that the State obtained permanent extinguishment of all rights and easements of ingress and egress along the appropriated strip of land. But the effect of this order is simply to preserve Plaza East's entrances and confine Plaza East to the access points it enjoyed before the taking. The State did not extinguish any existing points of ingress or egress. And it is well settled that a property owner is not entitled to unlimited access to abutting property at all points along the highway. Ensley, 240 Ind. at 486, 164 N.E.2d at 348; see also Beck v. State, 256 Ind. 318, 323, 268 N.E.2d 746, 749 (1971) (It is true that the existence of the highway across the appellants' lands prior to the acquisition of limited access facilities gave the abutting property owners a right of ingress and egress from their property to the highway. This does not mean, however, that they were entitled to free access at every foot along their road frontage.). Kimco also cites State v. Peterson, 269 Ind. 340, 381 N.E.2d 83 (1978), in support of its position. In Peterson, the defendants owned a triangular parcel of land that abutted old U.S. 30 and new U.S. 30 but had no established entrance on either. 269 Ind. at 342, 381 N.E.2d at 84. The subject property was not entitled to full or unlimited access rights to the highways. However it was entitled to access to either or to both, in accordance with governing statutes and case law. Id. (citing Ensley, 240 Ind. at 486, 164 N.E.2d at 348). The State converted new U.S. 30 to limited access which completely extinguished the landowners' access rights along that route, but had no effect on access to old U.S. 30. Id. In the subsequent eminent domain proceeding, the trial court refused the State's tendered instruction that Loss of access is compensable ... only when no other reasonable means of access is available to the property. Id. at 341, 381 N.E.2d at 84. This Court affirmed, explaining that if the highest and best use before the taking is for one purpose, and because of the access available after the taking, the property was no longer suitable for that use, but was still suitable for a less valuable use, the owner would be entitled to the damages reflecting the diminished value. Id. at 343, 381 N.E.2d at 85. The Peterson Court found the State's instruction confusing and misleading without this additional explanation: Other reasonable means of access, as used in this instruction, does not mean access that is reasonable for some other use of the land. Rather, it refers to other access that will permit the land to be used for that purpose regarded as its highest and best use immediately before the take. Id. at 344, 381 N.E.2d at 85. This language addressed damages from a taking that rendered the land unusable for its highest and best use. Elimination of all access to new U.S. 30 may have met the test. But Kimco did not suffer a compensable taking of access in the first instance. Although the State precluded any new access points along Green River Road, Plaza East's existing drives remained intact, and its use as a shopping center remained. As a matter of law, under Ensley, the redirected traffic flow is not a deprivation of a property right. Neither the construction of the median alone, nor the hypothetical conversion of Green River Road to a one-way street, would have constituted a compensable taking by the State. Kimco argues, however, that the State's roadway improvements, in conjunction with the appropriation of the 0.154-acre strip and temporary construction easement, taken together, opened the door to consequential damages from impaired traffic flow at the shopping complex. This argument was squarely addressed and rejected in Ensley. Ensley itself involved both the appropriation of a strip of land from the commercial property and the simultaneous construction of a raised divider strip cutting off northbound traffic from the Keystone Entrance. The Court found the two actions to be separate improvements. 240 Ind. at 488, 164 N.E.2d at 349. The taking of land was compensable, but the effects of the new median were not. Kimco argues that evidence of impaired access is admissible regardless of whether it is separately compensable. Br. of Appellee 32. We do not agree. Under Ensley, physical takings and coincident roadway improvements are distinct actions, even if concurrent.