Court Opinion

ID: 9846718
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:47:01.092478+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:46.197616
License: Public Domain

CROCKETT, Justice
(concurring, dissenting in part):
I agree that the plaintiff has at least an easement. But I would go further: it is my opinion that the evidence shows incontrovertibly that this is a public way. It has been open to public use since time immemorial (actual testimonies go back to 1936). It was recognized as such a public way by the City, being graded and gravelled prior to about 1952; and at about that time and since has been surfaced with asphalt.
I do not disagree that under appropriate facts, the use by an abutting land owner or owners to go to and from a place certain establishes only an easement. But this was obviously a public way from one public street to another and thus available to all who desired to use it. It matters not that the only persons definitely identified as having used it over the years were abutting land owners, so long as it was open to public and everyone used it who wanted to. There is no indication that anyone objected thereto or interfered therewith until 1971 when the defendant moved in and attempted obstruction of its use. Consistent with the authorities cited in the main opinion, my conclusion is as stated above: that in addition to the prescriptive rights which the plaintiff and other abutters have, this is a public way. See also Bonner v. Sudbury, 18 Utah 2d 140, 417 P.2d 646 (1966).