Court Opinion

ID: 9646311
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 12:56:39.675948+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:37.112415
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Justice O’Brien:
I cannot agree that, as a matter of law, appellees have suffered no compensable damages under §613 of the Eminent Domain Code. I fail to see how the majority can conclude from the record that appellees’ damage is solely “a product of the fact that the elevated highway has transformed what was once a heavily traveled highway (State Road) into a street which carries primarily local traffic only”. While that undoubtedly is the cause of some of appellees’ damages, the record we have from the board of viewers hardly reveals that it is the only source of damage. Appellees’ expert specifically testified that one of the ele*283ments of damage which he considered was “the dead ending of State Road.”
I would allow appellees an opportunity to prove at trial what portion of their damages flowed from that vacation of Old State Road. In re Melon Street, 182 Pa. 397, 403, 38 Atl. 482 (1897), upon which the drafters of §613 relied, clearly indicates that the fact that appellees’ property can still be reached from three of the four directions is not conclusive: “To draw the line between owners who may and owners who may not recover, at the point where the deprivation of access is total, is to draw it arbitrarily. The abutting owner’s special right in a street as a means of access to his property is not limited to the part of the street on which his property abuts. . . . His right is the right of access in any direction which the street permits. As affecting this right, no distinction can be drawn between a partial and a total deprivation of access; the impairment of the right is a legal injury differing in degree only from its total destruction. . . .” It is entirely possible that appellees at trial could not prove any damages. Melon went on to say, at page 405: “To sustain the right of a claimant to compensation because of the vacation of a street it must appear that the loss results from the depreciation in value of his land because of the change in the street, and his loss must be direct and proximate, and so obvious and substantial as to admit of calculation.” A slightly more circuitous route to travel does not constitute the requisite loss under the Melon standard. Apple v. City of Philadelphia, 103 Pa. Superior Ct. 458, 157 Atl. 325 (1931).
Surely the right of access includes access for patrons as well as for the owner. Cf. Hedrick v. Harrisburg, 278 Pa. 274, 122 Atl. 281 (1923). Access to an owner of a commercial establishment is worthless if his patrons do not also have access. This is not the *284same as saying that appellees have a property right in the traffic on the highway, a view rejected in Wolf v. Department of Highways, 422 Pa. 34, 220 A. 2d 868 (1966), cited by the majority. I agree with the majority that damages resulting from the diversion of traffic to the elevated highway constitute damnum absque injuria. Appellees have no vested right in the traffic going past their premises. Yet they do have a right to allow all those desiring to reach their premises a reasonable opportunity to do so. If appellees can prove that the journey for patrons south of Long-shore is considerably more difficult—longer or more complicated—then they should be entitled to recovery under §613.
I should also like to make one passing remark upon the appealability of the instant order. While I reluctantly concur in the majority’s refusal to quash, I would not do so were the language of the statute susceptible of any other meaning. The bifurcated appeal foisted upon the courts can only be termed a judicial Hydra. Would that a Hercules could appear in the legislature to slay this monster.