Court Opinion

ID: 9737331
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:22:11.697244+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:23:58.150456
License: Public Domain

STONE, J., Concurring and Dissenting.
I confine my dissent to the nature of defendants’ right of access. I believe defendants owned a compensable property right that was *363destroyed when the state closed off the crossing from their land over the railroad right of way to highway 99. Defendants’ right of access was not a mere possibility, something that might accrue in the future; it was an existing right, one that had been exercised for some 50 years. The right had passed with the land, each new owner continuing to use the crossing to gain access to highway 99.
The majority stress the fact that the railroad could have terminated defendants’ right to cross at any time. But the railroad did not terminate the right, the state condemned it. Furthermore, had the railroad done so, defendants could have petitioned the Public Utilities Commission under Public Utilities Code section 7537 to have a right of access established. I cannot agree with the majority view that since the landowners failed to petition the Public Utilities Commission there was no compensable property right. There was no reason to petition the Public Utilities Commission for a right defendants were already exercising, a right that had been enjoyed by them and their predecessors for 50 years.
It seems to me that the arguments presented by both sides merely raise questions of value. That is, in determining the question of damages the jury could consider (a) that the railroad might cancel defendants’ right to cross its property at any time, (b) that defendants could petition the Public Utilities Commission for an access crossing, and (e) that defendants and their predecessors had used the crossing without interference for 50 years.
Weighing possibilities and probabilities in determining value is not at all unusual in condemnation actions. For example, the question of present zoning, the possibility of future zoning changes, and the question of the highest and best use of property, are probabilities that arise in condemnation cases. (People v. Donovan, 57 Cal.2d 346, 352 [19 Cal.Rptr. 473, 369 P.2d 1]; People v. Graziadio, 231 Cal.App. 2d 525, 528 [42 Cal.Rptr. 29].)
A petition for rehearing was denied December 23, 1965, and respondents ’ petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied January 19,1966.