Court Opinion

ID: 9560998
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:00:57.899321+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:27.459638
License: Public Domain

*605The opinion of the court was delivered by
Fatzer, J.:
This was an eminent domain proceeding commenced by the State Highway Commission (commission) to acquire a right of way for the relocation of U. S. Highway 24 as a controlled access highway through Calhoun Bluffs northeast of Topeka. The landowners, Francis M. and Lucile G. Riddle (plaintiffs) appealed to the district court from the award of the appraisers. The commission did not appeal. Following a trial by a jury on March 5th and 6th, 1958, the plaintiffs were awarded damages in the amount of $23,887. The commission has appealed from that judgment and the order overruling its motion for a new trial. Specifications of error are hereafter noted.
Plaintiffs were the owners of a rectangular tract of land containing 6.82 acres upon which was located their home and a six-unit motel which they had profitably operated for a number of years. The south side of their premises abutted old U. S. Highway 24, a transcontinental highway carrying a great amount of through traffic, to which the plaintiffs and patrons of their motel had direct access at several points. The north or-rear portion of the property was not used in connection with the motel, but was wooded, making a scenic site for the motel and plaintiffs’ residence. For purpose of clarity the area involved is shown by the following map.
On May 21, 1957, the commission filed its petition for the condemnation of several lots and parcels of land, including 4.32 acres off the back or north portion of the plaintiffs’ property for the construction of the new highway. Although their remaining property abuts upon the new highway, due to its controlled access feature, the plaintiffs have no right of access. When completed, the new highway will be on a high graded elevation and users will be able to see only the roof of the motel for a short distance, and, if they become aware of its location, may reach it only by leaving the new highway at a diamond shaped interchange 600 feet east of the property, or at a crossover one and one-half miles west — where, from either point, the motel is not visible.
The home and motel are located on the remaining 2.5 acres of land; no severance was occasioned by the condemnation, and neither was disturbed. The old highway will not be physically changed but will remain open to public travel and plaintiffs- will *607continue to have the same access to it as prior to the condemnation; the motel will face the same highway it always did and its patrons will have the same approach they always had, however, the major portion of the traffic, instead of passing in front of the motel, will travel upon the new highway at the rear. Thus, for all practical purposes, due to the diversion of traffic occasioned by the establishment of the new highway and denial of direct access thereto, the use of the property as a motel will be greatly curtailed.

*606

*607On the same day the petition was filed, the court determined it was sufficient; that the commission had the power of eminent domain, and that the lands were necessary for state highway purposes. Accordingly, appraisers were duly appointed to assess damages. On June 12, 1957, the appraisers filed their report of appraisement with the clerk of the district court, and made a total award to plaintiffs in the amount of $16,629.
At the commencement of the trial it was stipulated by the parties that the value of fence and a chicken house located upon the land taken (indicated on the map as “sheds”) was $360, which is not here in issue. Mr. Riddle testified on direct examination that the market value of the land when taken was $4,000 and that the difference in value of the remaining land before and after the taking was $20,500, based upon denial of access to the new highway. In addition, Clark J. Harvey and Glenn Davis, two real estate dealers, and Bob Brock, a contractor engaged in the business of building motels, gave expert testimony on behalf of the plaintiffs. Harvey testified that he was familiar with the plaintiffs’ property and that they had been engaged in the motel business more than eight years; that he was familiar with the new highway and the land taken; that the entire 6.82 acres were worth $45,820; that the 4.32 acres were worth $4,320; that the remainder before the taking was worth $42,-500 and after the taking it was worth $17,500; that all damage to the remainder was $25,000; that the factors he took into consideration in arriving at those values were the denial of access to the new highway; great loss of income or profits; noise; unsightliness of the grade; inconvenience and circuity of travel occasioned by the deprivation of access; replacement costs of buying ground and building the same type of building on another transcontinental highway, and the value of the house without access to the new highway. Upon redirect examination he further testified that the damage of $25,000 to the remainder was practically all due to lack of access *608to the new highway and that such lack of access constituted 95 percent of the remainder damages. The commission moved to strike all of Harvey’s testimony as incompetent for the reason it was based upon three elements of damage, i. e., (1) deprivation of access to the new highway; (2) loss of business or profits, and (3) inconvenience or circuity of travel in reaching the new highway, upon the ground that such elements were not proper elements of damage and not compensable in a condemnation proceeding. The motion was overruled.
Davis and Brock testified upon direct examination that the fair market value of the land when taken was from $4,300 to $4,320, and the difference in value of the remaining land before and after the taking was from $26,112 to $26,500. Each testified he took into consideration the same factors Harvey previously testified to in arriving at the fair market value of the land remaining. Upon cross-examination each testified that because of those factors the commercial value of the land remaining had been rendered “almost completely worthless”; they made the damage “total," and rendered the property not “worth anything as a motel.” One testified that “decreasing the size of the tract” was “a very minor” damage. However, all of plaintiffs’ expert witnesses testified that the home was damaged substantially by the taking of the entire back yard. Upon the conclusion of plaintiffs’ case, the commission renewed its motion to strike the testimony of all of plaintiffs’ expert witnesses for the reasons previously stated, which likewise was overruled.
Three real estate dealers (the court-appointed appraisers) testified as expert witnesses for the commission, that the fair market value of the land when taken was from $3,024 to $3,025, and the difference in value of the remaining land before and after the taking was from $4,961.04 to $6,250. Upon cross-examination each testified that he was taken to plaintiffs’ property the day before the trial and instructed by counsel for the commission to determine damages to the land remaining, omitting damages for denial of access to the new highway and loss of business or profits to the motel for the reason those items were not compensable in a condemnation proceeding; accordingly, each reduced the original award of $16,629 by approximately $9,000. One witness testified he made no award for damage to the home.
As previously indicated, the verdict was in favor of the plaintiffs, *609and the jury answered special questions. The commission filed a timely motion for a new trial, which was overruled, and it perfected this appeal specifying the district court erred (1) in giving instruction No. 10 that access in the instant case was a property right which should be taken into consideration in determining damages to the land remaining; (2) in refusing to strike all of the plaintiffs’ expert evidence for the reason that it was based upon improper elements of damage; (3) in refusing to give instructions requested by the commission, and (4) in overruling its motion for a new trial.
As preliminary to discussing specifications of error, we note the parties concede that new U. S. Highway 24 was established by the commission as a controlled access facility pursuant to G. S. 1957 Supp. 68-1901, et seq., and that plaintiffs have no direct access to the new highway where it abuts their property. Plaintiffs have access to the new highway, but by a longer and more circuitous route of travel.
It is clear from the record that plaintiffs had no right of access to the new highway prior to its construction, because no highway, conventional or otherwise, previously existed. It is also clear we are not concerned with damages for the deprivation of plaintiffs’ right of direct access had old U. S. Highway 24 been widened and reconstructed as a controlled access facility.
We trun now to the specifications of error. There is no dispute between the parties concerning the value of the land taken. The principal questions presented and argued relate to the admission of evidence, the giving of instructions and the refusal to give requested instructions with respect to elements of damage which may properly be considered in determining diminution in market value of the land remaining based upon a consideration of all of the capabilities of the property for its best and most advantageous uses as it was actually situated at the time of the taking.
The commission first contends that the denial of plaintiffs’ right of direct access to the new controlled access highway is not a compensable element of damage in a condemnation proceeding, and urges that the trial court erred in giving instruction No. 10, which reads:
“You are instructed that where, for the purpose of establishing, widening, or improving a public highway, a strip of land is taken from a tract and the owner’s right of access from a public highway is taken, the owner is entitled *610to compensation for injury to and depreciation, if any, of the remainder of the tract resulting from the appropriation of the land rights of access in question.”
The commission further contends the trial court erred in refusing to sustain its motion to strike the testimony of all of plaintiffs’ expert witnesses regarding diminution in market value of the land remaining because it was based primarily upon elements of damage not compensable in a condemnation proceeding, namely, denial of the right of access to the new highway; business loss or loss of profits, and the diversion of traffic from the old highway to the new.
Since statehood this court has consistently held that an abutting property owner has special private rights in existing streets and highways, the most important of which is the right of access to and from the street or highway, which may not be taken from him by the public without just compensation (C. B. U. P. Rld. Co. v. Andrews, 30 Kan. 590, 2 Pac. 677; Highbarger v. Milford, 71 Kan. 331, 80 Pac. 633; Longnecker v. Railroad Co., 80 Kan. 413, 102 Pac. 492; Simmons v. State Highway Commission, 178 Kan. 26, 283 P. 2d 392; Ruthstrom v. Peterson, 72 Kan. 679, 83 Pac. 825; G. S. 1957 Supp. 68-1903). The right is justified upon the grounds of necessity (Longnecker v. Railroad Co., supra) and is such as is reasonably necessary for the enjoyment of the land (Highbarger v. Milford, supra). It is a property right known in law as an “easement appurtenant” or an “easement access” to the abutting land (28 C. J. S., Easements, §§ 1-4, pp. 619-639; 25 Am. Jur., Highways, § 154, p. 448; 39 C. J. S., Highways, § 141, p. 1079; Restatement of the Law, Servitudes, § 450). It includes not only the right of the abutting owner to enter and leave his property by way of the highway, but also the right to have the premises accessible to patrons, clients and customers (Longnecker v. Railroad Co., supra). However, such right is subject to reasonable regulations of the commission with respect to entrances (Simmons v. State Highway Commission, supra).
Where, however, a new controlled access highway is established by the commission pursuant to G. S. 1957 Supp. 68-1901, et seq., through property where no highway previously existed, there is no “taking” of a right of access since such a right of access never in fact existed (Schnider v. State of California, 38 C 2d 439, 241 P. 2d 1, 43 A. L. R. 2d 1068; State ex rel. State Highway Comm. v. Clevenger, 365 Mo. 970, 291 S. W. 2d 57; State Highway Com. *611v. Burk et al., 200 Or. 211, 265 P. 2d 783; Carazalla v. State, 269 Wis. 593, 608a, 70 N. W. 2d 208; State v. Calkins, 50 Wn. 2d 716, 719, 314 P. 2d 449). See, also, articles entitled: The Limited Access Highway, 27 Wash. L. Rev. 111; 13 Mo. L. Rev. 29; Freeways, 3 Stanford L. Rev. 298).
The legislature has plenary power over highways and it is well settled that their use may be limited, controlled and regulated in the exercise of the police power whenever necessary to promote the safety and general welfare of the people (State, ex rel., v. State Commission of Revenue and Taxation, 163 Kan. 240, 247, 181 P. 2d 532; 25 Am. Jur., Highways, §§ 253, 254, pp. 544, 545; State v. Atkin, 64 Kan. 174, 67 Pac. 519, 97 Am. S. R. 343, affirmed Atkin v. Kansas, 191 U. S. 207, 48 L. Ed. 148, 24 S. Ct. 124; 40 C. J. S., Highways, §232, pp. 240-244). Thus, the regulation of traffic under the police power includes such things as prohibiting left turns, prescribing one-way traffic, prohibiting access or crossovers between separated traffic lanes, prohibiting or regulating parking, and restricting the speed, weight, size and character of vehicles allowed on certain highways (State Highway Com. v. Burk et al., supra, p. 230).
It is reliably reported that travel upon our inadequate highways results in 40,000 deaths, a million and a half injuries and property damage of two billion dollars a year, and that these staggering losses have been materially reduced wherever modern controlled access highways have been established leaves no doubt but that the designation of a highway as a controlled access facility pursuant to G. S. 1957 Supp. 68-1901, et seq., is an exercise of the police power (State, ex rel., v. St. Louis-S. F. Rly. Co., 124 Kan. 433, 260 Pac. 980; Panhandle Co. v. Highway Comm'n, 294 U. S. 613, 79 L. Ed. 1090, 55 S. Ct. 563).
The commission exercised the police power under the statute when it determined the highway in question should be relocated and established as a controlled access facility, denying abutters’ right of access thereto. This was a separate and distinct act from the condemnation proceeding to acquire the right of way.
The authorities universally hold there are two methods by which an abutter’s right of access may be curtailed or prohibited — the police power and the power of eminent domain (18 Am. Jur., Eminent Domain, § 11, p. 639; Carazella v. State, supra; 25 Am. Jur., Highways, § 253, p. 544; 40 C. J. S., Highways, § 232, p. 240; Free*612ways, 3 Stanford L. Rev. p. 302; The Limited Access Highway, 27 Wash. L. Rev. p. 120; Barrett, et al. v. Union Bridge Co., 117 Or. 220, 243 Pac. 93; State ex rel. Suksdorf v. Superior Court, 169 Wn. 195, 13 P. 2d 460; Simmons v. State Highway Commission, supra). Under the power of eminent domain the sovereign may take or damage private property for a public purpose upon payment of just compensation (Highbarger v. Milford, supra; Simmons v. State Highway Commission, supra). On the other hand, the police power is the power which the state inherently has to restrict the use of property without paying compensation by valid regulations intending to promote public health, safety, morals and general welfare (Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U. S. 623, 31 L. Ed. 205, 8 S. Ct. 273; Schaake v. Dolley, 85 Kan. 598, 118 Pac. 80, 37 L. R. A. [n. s.] 877; State ex rel. Carter v. Harper, 182 Wis. 148, 153, 196 N. W. 451, 33 A. L. R. 269).
While G. S. 1957 Supp. 68-1903 authorizes the commission to acquire private or public property or property rights, including rights of access, by “condemnation, in the same manner as now or hereafter authorized by law for acquiring property or property rights in connection with highways,” we think the legislature only intended that power to be invoked to acquire previously existing rights of access when an existing conventional highway is widened and improved as a controlled access facility (G. S. 1957 Supp. 68-1904). In that situation there is a taking of an existing right under the power of eminent domain for which the owner must be compensated (Simmons v. State Highway Commission, supra). Where, however, a new highway is established by the commission as a controlled access facility through land where no highway previously existed, and the right of access is restricted by exercise of the police power, the abutting owner is not entitled to compensation for the restriction of that right. Generally speaking, damage resulting to property through the exercise of the police power is not compensable (Mugler v. Kansas, supra).
We agree with the commission that if instruction No. 10 may be interpreted as instructing the jury as a matter of law that the denial of plaintiffs’ right of access to the new highway was a property right which was compensable, the instruction was erroneous. To constitute a taking of property so as to be compensable under eminent domain, a private right must be impaired or destroyed. Here, no right of access existed; hence, there could be no impairment or *613destruction of that right (Schnider v. State of California, supra; State Highway Com. v. Burk et al., supra; State v. Calkins, supra).
When instruction No. 10 is read together with all instructions given, we do not think it was so misleading as to constitute reversible error. While it referred to the taking of an owners right of access, it further advised the jury that plaintiffs were entitled to compensation for injury to and depreciation, if any, of the remainder of the tract resulting from the appropriation of the right of access. In instruction No. 2 the jury was advised to consider whether plaintiffs suffered any damage to the remainder of their land by reason of the relocation of the highway and if it found plaintiffs had suffered damage, the jury should award such sum as would reasonably compensate therefor. Instruction No. 5 informed the jury that it could not allow plaintiffs any recovery for damage that accrued subsequent to June 12, 1957 (the date of the taking) or for any future, speculative or prospective damage. Instruction No. 6 stated that the measure of damage for any injury which the jury might find occurred to plaintiffs from the relocation of the highway along their land was the difference between the market value of the remainder of the land immediately before and immediately after the appropriation. By instruction No. 7 the jury was advised that plaintiffs were entitled to recover the actual market value of the land appropriated for the location of the new highway and after it had determined that amount it should proceed to determine whether plaintiffs suffered any damage to the remainder of their land by reason of the location of the highway, independently of the value of the land actually taken; that if it found the remainder of plaintiffs’ land had suffered damage, then it should proceed to determine the amount of such damage in accordance with previous instructions.
Notwithstanding the conclusion heretofore announced that there was no right of access to the new highway, and that none was condemned, that conclusion is not decisive of the further question whether the controlled access character of the new highway was relevant to the issue of damages to the land remaining. The effect that the controlled access feature might have on the market value of the land remaining presents a question which is not dependent upon the existence of a right of access. Again, emphasizing that the lack of access to the new highway cannot be considered as a factor, because that right was nonexistent, nevertheless, the market value of the land remaining may be affected by the nature and *614extent of the taking, which might affect the reasonable probable uses to which the remaining land may be put, and that fact was a proper element for the jury to consider in determining damages to the land remaining.
The case of State Highway Com. v. Burk et al, supra, dealt with the relocation of a controlled access highway running through the owner’s land. The court concluded that the owner had no right of access to the new highway; that the commission did not “take” a right of access and that no damage should be allowed for the loss of such supposed right. In the course of the opinion the court said:
. . Our conclusion that there was no easement of access and that none was condemned is not decisive of the further question as to whether the non-access character of the highway was relevant on the issue of consequential or severance damages to the remaining property. The effect which the unique and total character of the condemnation may have upon the market value of the property not taken, presents an issue which is not dependent upon the existence of an easement. . . .
“. . . In any event, whether the market value of the land not taken was affected by the ‘more complete severance’ resulting from the character of the highway appropriated, was a question to be determined by the jury upon the evidence. . . .
“. . . It follows that the damages awarded to a land owner may include an element of loss by reason of a depreciation in the market value of the remaining land by reason of the peculiar nature of the appropriation.” (1. c. 235, 236, 238.)
See, also, McHale v. State, 94 N. Y. S. 2d 684; People v. Ricciardi, 23 C. 2d 390, 144 P. 2d 799.
The commission’s contention that the trial court erred in failing to strike the testimony of plaintiffs’ expert witnesses is not well taken. With respect to this testimony the commission in its abstract states in effect that the witnesses took the denial of access into consideration in determining damages to the land remaining. Evidence of that character was admissible under the conclusion heretofore announced as being a proper element for the jury to consider in determining damages to the land remaining.
With respect to business loss or loss of profits we conclude that as an abstract principle of law no allowance may be made for the loss of profits to a business in a condemnation proceeding (Bales v. Railroad Co., 92 Kan. 771, 141 Pac. 1009), however, we know of no rule which forbids an expert witness to take into account the fact that the business conducted on the premises was a profitable *615one. We think that an expert witness may properly consider that fact as tending to show the property could be and had been adapted to a use which was profitably carried on (Troy Housing Authority v. Clemente Brothers, Inc., 164 N. Y. S. 2d 555). In State v. Hudson Circle Service Center, Inc., 46 N. J. Super 125, 134 A. 2d 113, it was said:
“The court in the Lenzner case noted initially the rule followed in this State that ‘even though the taking of the land actually results in the loss of the owner’s business located thereon, he is not entitled to any independent compensation for the value of the business.’ The court then noted ‘the increasing tendency displayed in recent cases of giving fair and weighty consideration to the consequential loss of business as an element of the compensation rightly due to the owner.’ The opinion makes reference to the case of Housing Authority of City of Bridgeport v. Lustig, 139 Conn. 73, 90 A. 2d 169 (Sup. Ct. Err. 1952), which involved a condemnation report which fixed the value of the owner’s poultry market building at $6,500 and then stated that if the owner should be compensated for the building with an established poultry business therein, the fair market value of the building was $16,500. The court, in sustaining an award of $16,500, held that the owner was entitled to the fair market value of his real property, and that ‘in determining such value it was proper to consider all of the elements which an owner or a prospective purchaser could reasonably urge as affecting its fair price.’ ” (1. c. 133.)
Plaintiffs are entitled to compensation according to the most advantageous and profitable use they could make of their land, the measure being the price which could be agreed upon at a voluntary sale between an owner willing to sell and a purchaser willing to buy; in other words, the fair market value of the land (Hoy v. Kansas Turnpike Authority, 184 Kan. 70, 334 P. 2d 315). The diminution of the market value of plaintiffs’ remaining land should be fixed after giving due consideration to all the factors which customarily enter into purchase and sale negotiations. Consequently, a foremost factor in the sale of the motel would be its prospective earning power evidenced in considerable part by past earnings. We reject the contention of the commission that the award was based upon an improper element of damage for business loss or loss of profits. As previously indicated, the abstract of the commission states this factor was considered by plaintiffs’ expert witnesses in relation to damage to the land remaining. As such, it was properly received for consideration by the jury.
With respect to the diversion of traffic from the old to the new highway, the commission was under no duty to the plaintiffs to *616maintain a highway near their residence and motel, and it may relocate the highway when the public safety, convenience, economy, classification or reclassification require such change (G. S. 1957 Supp. 68-406). Although the residence and motel were made less accessible as a result of the relocation of U. S. Highway 24, that fact may or may not affect the market value of the land remaining. Thus, the diversion of the major portion of the traffic is not an element of damage to be considered by the jury in determining damage to the land remaining. However, the diversion of the flow of traffic from in front of plaintiffs’ place of business to the new highway constructed upon the high grade at its rear from which plaintiffs’ premises had no direct access, is a circumstance of which the jury should be informed and the question whether such fact results in damage to the land remaining was properly left to their ultimate decision (People v. Ricciardi, 23 C. 2d 390, 144 P. 2d 799; Pike County v. Whittington, 263 Ala. 47, 81 So. 2d 288; McRea v. Marion County, 222 Ala. 511, 133 So. 278; McHale v. State, 94 N. Y. S. 2d 684).
We now turn to the commission’s requested instructions, which were denied:
“1. You are instructed not to allow compensation for deprivation of access to new highway 24 under the facts of this case for the reason that the landowner has not been legally deprived of access to an existing road previously on the location of the new highway 24. '
“2. You are instructed that an owner abutting a highway does not have a vested property right in the traffic traveling thereon and therefore loss of anticipated profits or business loss suffered by the plaintiff in his business occasioned by the relocation of highway 24 are not to be considered by you as an element of damages in this action.
“3. You are instructed to disregard any evidence concerning the cost of reproduction of the motel and house as such is not legal evidence of the market value of either the motel or. the house. You are only to consider evidence of market value.”
In view of what has been heretofore stated and concluded, it would serve little purpose to discuss each of the above requested instructions. Suffice it to say, standing alone each correctly stated an abstract principle of law, but under the facts and circumstances disclosed by the record we do not think the trial court erred in failing to give them.
The commission’s last assignment of error is that the trial court erred in overruling its motion for a new trial. It would serve little purpose to lengthen this opinion by a discussion of this point. *617From what has been heretofore stated, we conclude the trial court did not err in overruling that motion.
Upon a consideration of the record it has not been affirmatively made to appear that the trial court erred in any of the respects contended by the commission, and the judgment is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Price and Robb, JJ., concur in the result.