Barnes v. North Carolina State Highway Commission, 536
Decision Date | 10 July 1962 |
Docket Number | No. 536,536 |
Citation | 257 N.C. 507,126 S.E.2d 732 |
Parties | J. B. BARNES, Petitioner, v. The NORTH CAROLINA STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION; H. T. Butts; Hugh B. Beal, Trustee; Security National Bank of Greensboro; Standard Oil Company of New Jersey; W. O. McGibony, Trustee; The Federal Land Bank of Columbia; and Lattie D. Matthews, Executrix of the Estate of M. A. Matthews, Deceased, Respondents. |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
T. W. Bruton, Atty. Gen., Harrison Lewis, Asst. Atty. Gen., Millard R. Rich, Jr., Member of Staff, Raleigh, and Bryan & Bryan, Dunn, for respondent State Highway Commission, appellant.
M. O. Lee, Lillington, Wilson & Bain and Wiley F. Bowen, Dunn, Robert B. Morgan, Lillington, for petitioner-appellee.
Robert Morgan, Lillington, for respondents Butts and Matthews, appellees.
As to the measure of damages, the court instructed the jury, inter alia, as follows: This instruction is in accord with our decisions. Proctor v. State Highway and Public Works Commission, 230 N.C. 687, 691, 55 S.E.2d 479; Robinson v. State Highway Commission, 249 N.C. 120, 105 S.E.2d 287, and cases cited.
There is no controversy as to petitioner's right to recover compensation for the part taken, to wit, Tract A (including improvements thereon) and Tract B.
The primary question for decision is whether, in determining the injury, if any, to the remaining portion (17.14 acres) of his land, petitioner is entitled to compensation for diminution in the value thereof caused by the fact he now has direct access therefrom only to the lanes of #401 (as relocated) reserved exclusively for southbound traffic has direct access thereto. The question is drawn sharply into focus by exceptions and assignments of error relating to portions of petitioner's pleading and evidence and to portions of the court's instructions, including the allegations, evidence and instructions set forth in the following three paragraphs.
Petitioner alleged his remaining property, particularly the portions occupied by the Matthews filling station and bulk oil premises and the Frozen Custard Place, was greatly damaged "by the division of the lanes of travel in such a manner that said property can only attract and serve potential customers traveling in a southerly direction along said highway."
Petitioner offered evidence, which, as stated by the court, tended to show "that the sum of $40,000.00 damage to the remainder of his tract which was not taken consisted primarily of diminution in value because of the way in which the highway was constructed, particularly the construction of what has been referred to as a median strip, * * *"
The court instructed the jury that petitioner had offered evidence tending to show that, after the taking on January 1, 1960, #401 (as relocated) (Our italics)
McQuillin, Municipal Corporations, Third Edition, Volume 11, § 32.27. "The state must compensate for property rights taken by eminent domain; damages resulting form the exercise of the police power are noncompensable." State v. Fox, 53 Wash.2d 216, 332 P.2d 943, 946; Walker v. Sate, 48 Wash.2d 587, 295 P.2d 328, and cases cited.
Petitioner contends the Highway Commission, by the relocation of #401 so that he now has direct access only to the lanes thereof reserved exclusively for southbound traffic, has appropriated a property right for which, under the law of eminent domain, he is entitled to compensation. The Highway Commission contends the relocation of #401 and the separation of the lanes for northbound and southbound traffic by a median is a traffic regulation adopted in the exercise of the police power vested in it by G.S. Chapter 136, Article 2, and injury to petitioner's remaining land caused thereby is not compensable.
Prior to January 1, 1960, the paved portion of #401 was twenty-four feet. Petitioner testified the traffic on the highways then passing his property "was tremendous." Project No. 8.14368, in its entirety and with reference to #401, was designed to promote the safety and convenience of the public by reducing the hazards of travel and expediting the flow of traffic. Petitioner does not allege, nor does he contend, the public safety and convenience were not served thereby.
Nichols on Eminent Domain, Third Edition, Volume 2, § 6.445; Board of Com'rs of Santa Fe County v. Slaughter, 49 N.M. 141, 158 P.2d 859; City of Memphis v. Hood, 208 Tenn. 319, 345 S.W.2d 887.
As stated by Kyle, J., in Muse v. Mississippi State Highway Commission, 233 Miss. 694, 103 So.2d 839:
In Walker v. State, supra, the plaintiffs owned property fronting five hundred feet on the south side of a primary four-lane state highway on which they operated a motel. The State Highway Commission installed a concrete center line curb, thereby preventing direct access from the plaintiffs' property to the lanes for westbound traffic. In holding that the plaintiffs were not entitled to injunctive relief or compensation, the court, in opinion by Weaver, J., said:
In accord: Department of Public Works and Bldgs. v. Mabee, 22 Ill.2d 202, 174 N.E.2d 801; Iowa State Highway Commission v. Smith, 248 Iowa 869, 82 N.W.2d 755, 73 A.L.R.2d 680; State v. Ensley, 240 Ind. 472, 164 N.E.2d 342; State v. Fox (Wash.), supra; People ex rel. Department of Public Works v. Ayon, 54 Cal.2d 217, 5 Cal.Rptr. 151, 352 P.2d 519, certiorari denied sub nomine Yor-Way Markets v. California, 364 U.S. 827, 81 S.Ct. 65, 5 L.Ed.2d 55; State ex rel. Merritt v. Linzell, 163 Ohio St. 97, 126 N.E.2d 53; In re Appropriation of Easements for Highway and Slope Purposes, 101...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Beroth Oil Co.
...that deciding whether a taking has occurred involves “essentially ad hoc, factual inquiries”); Barnes v. N.C. State Highway Comm'n, 257 N.C. 507, 518–19, 126 S.E.2d 732, 740–41 (1962) (distinguishing cases cited by a party because “they involve different factual situations and different leg......
-
Narciso v. State, 1922-A
...869, 82 N.W.2d 755 (1957); State ex rel. Dep't of Highways v. Linnecke, 86 Nev. 257, 468 P.2d 8 (1970); Barnes v. North Carolina State Highway Comm'r, 257 N.C. 507, 126 S.E.2d 732 (1962); Wolf v. Commonwealth, 422 Pa. 34, 220 A.2d 868 (1966). While the propertyowner is not entitled to compl......
-
Wofford v. North Carolina State Highway Commission, 448
...making use thereof, and the landowner has no constitutional right to have others pass his premises. Barnes v. North Carolina State Highway Commission, 257 N.C. 507, 126 S.E.2d 732. The restriction upon the landowner and the restriction upon the public generally, in the use of the street for......
-
Beroth Oil Co. v. N.C. Dep't of Transp.
...for property rights taken by eminent domain; damages resulting from the exercise of police power are noncompensable.257 N.C. 507, 514, 126 S.E.2d 732, 737–38 (1962) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Plaintiffs are correct in stating that police power and eminent domain power are anal......