Opinion ID: 1419944
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: The Temporary Easements

Text: The City took temporary easements to complete the project, and Wal-Mart is entitled to compensation for that taking. 4 Nichols on Eminent Domain § 12E.01 (3d ed. rev. 1998). The question is whether Wal-Mart is entitled to more than the district court awarded. The answer is, No. Wal-Mart argues the blocking of three of the four entrances to its property, blowing dust, rodent infestation, and construction noise constituted an `inconvenience' and impairment of `productivity'  under K.S.A. 26-513(d)(4). K.S.A. 26-513(d)(4) lists factors which must be taken into consideration in a partial taking. The statute references: [p]roductivity, convenience, use to be made of the property taken, or use of the property remaining. The City counters with Lewis v. Globe Constr. Co., 6 Kan. App. 2d 478, 630 P.2d 179, rev. denied 230 Kan. 818 (1981). In Lewis, landowners complained of temporary damages due to street improvements. In denying compensation, the Court of Appeals quoted Farrell v. Rose, 253 N.Y. 73, 76, 170 N.E. 498 (1930): `The highway is continually being dug up for ... sewers, gas mains, repairs and like. The inconvenience and damage which a property owner suffers from these temporary obstructions are incident to city life and must be endured. The law gives [the adjoining landowner] no right to relief, recognizing that he recoups his damage in the benefit which he shares with the general public in the ultimate improvement which is being made.' 6 Kan. App.2d at 483. Lewis concerned blocked access, but not dust, rodents, and construction noise. We find no Kansas case dealing with a landowner's damage claims for dust, rodents, and noise. From the record here, it is not clear whether the dust, noise, and rodent claim was peculiar to Wal-Mart or suffered by everyone during the project. The landowner has a responsibility to show that its damages are special to the property affected and not damages suffered generally. We find no such showing here. We agree with the rationale in Lewis. Wal-Mart is not entitled to damages for dust, noise, and rodents under the facts here.