Court Opinion

ID: 9644229
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 20:50:28.721127+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:10.027971
License: Public Domain

George Bose Smith, J., dissenting. In this case the appellee’s home, store, and tourist court lie on the west side of the old highway. In the main his buildings are as yet undisturbed and have the same physical value as before. It is true that the market value of his property has been reduced by the relocation of the highway, but I do not regard that damage as compensable in this action. What the State has done is to relocate the highway by constructing a new thoroughfare a short distance east of the old road. The old highway is still in existence and provides a means of access to the appellee’s place of business. The proof is that the appellee’s volume of business has declined, as it is now difficult for the traveling public to reach his store and tourist court. It happens that this difficulty is due in part to the fact that the new road is several feet lower in grade than the old one; to reach the appellee’s property the public must leave the new road at a short distance in either direction from the appellee’s place of business, instead of immediately in front of it. But the point is that this inconvenience, with its adverse effect upon market values, is simply due to the fact that the road has been relocated. In Hempstead County v. Huddleston, 182 Ark. 276, 31 S. W. 2d 300, we held that damage resulting from the relocation of a highway is not compensable. “No person has a vested right in the maintenance of a public highway in any particular place, as the power is in the State to relocate the road at any time in the public interest. Therefore, the change in the road so as to leave appellee’s residence off the new road did not constitute an element of damage in this case.” Had the new road in the case at bar been located a mile east of the old one the damage to the appellee would have been far greater than it is now, since it would have been still more inconvenient for the public to do business with him. Yet in that situation the loss would not have been compensable. I do not see that the situation is changed by the fact that here the relocated highway is a few feet away horizontally and about five feet vertically, while in the supposed case the new road might be a mile away horizontally. In either case the harm results from the fact that the appellee’s property no longer abuts the main thoroughfare, but that is not an element of recoverable damage. The other factor relied upon by the appellee’s witnesses is the possibility that the old highway may someday -be regraded to the elevation of the new one, leaving the appellee’s property perched from a bank five feet above the road. That however, is only a possibility that may or may not occur. I think it unsound to bottom the landowner’s claim to damages upon a uncertainty such as this, for there is no limit to the vague threats of future damage that landowners may conjure up in condemnation cases. Damage that is purely speculative should not be paid for until it becomes a fact. If the State should, at some future date, take steps to lower the grade of the old highway, that will be a separate damage for which the appellee will have a separate cause of action. In Arkansas State Highway Com’n v. Partain, 192 Ark. 127, 90 S. W. 2d 968, Partain’s situation was exactly like the appellee’s will be if the State decides in the future to lower the old roadway. There the State did not propose to take any of Partain’s land; its purpose was to construct a viaduct upon an existing street that ran directly in front of Partain’s residence. Even though Partain could not sue the State, we held that he could enjoin the work until compensation had been made for the damage. In like manner, if the State should eventually decide to reduce the elevation of the old highway the appellee will have his remedy by injunction. It is my conclusion that this cause should be remanded for a new trial, the proof to be limited to those damages that are now recoverable. Holt and Ward, JJ., join in this dissent.