Court Opinion

ID: 9535661
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:51:44.724103+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:18.134160
License: Public Domain

THOMAS, Justice,
specially concurring.
I agree with the result of and rationale for the majority opinion in this case. I can go even a step further and find an affirmative legislative intention to eliminate any requirement to demonstrate necessity in a proceeding for the creation or establishment of a public highway right-of-way based upon adverse possession or prescription. In the language of § 24-1(b), W.S. 1957, as amended, 1975 Cum.Supp. (now § 24-1-101(d), W.S.1977) where it is provided, “Only that portion of county highways * * * actually constructed or substantially maintained by the county and trav-elled and used by the general public for a period of ten (10) years or longer * * * shall be presumed to be public highways lawfully established as such by official authority” (emphasis supplied), I can find a conclusive legislative presumption that necessity has been demonstrated.
Why the legislature requires the county to sustain the burden of showing necessity when a county road is sought to be established by condemnation but does not impose that requirement when the board of county commissioners concludes to establish a road under the doctrine of prescription is an anomaly for me. Travel and use by the general public and even county construction and maintenance can be present as much because of convenience as because of necessity. It should not be easier for the county to dedicate private property for use as a public road when the county does not in*583tend to pay for the land than it is to so dedicate such property when the county is required to pay for the land. Yet I agree that this is the product of the present legislative scheme.
It may be that some future legislature will choose to re-evaluate this feature of these statutes. A similar requirement in both instances would be more fair to property owners. In addition the burdens of supervision, management and control of county roads (§ 24-1-104, W.S.1977; Board of County Commissioners of County of Fremont v. State ex rel Miller, Wyo., 369 P.2d 537 (1962)) as well as the public liability attaching to county roads (§§ 1-39-119, W.S.1977; Oroz v. Board of County Commissioners, Wyo., 575 P.2d 1155 (1978)) should not be more readily assumed in the instance of establishment by prescription than when the road is established pursuant to the condemnation procedure.