Blumenstein v. City of Long Beach

• Decision Date: 18 July 1956
• Citation: 299 P.2d 347,143 Cal.App.2d 264
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: Cecil W. BLUMENSTEIN, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CITY OF LONG BEACH, a municipal corporation, Defendant and Appellant. Civ. 21448.

Page 347

299 P.2d 347

143 Cal.App.2d 264

Cecil W. BLUMENSTEIN, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CITY OF LONG BEACH, a municipal corporation, Defendant and Appellant.

Civ. 21448.

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California.

July 18, 1956.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 6, 1956.

Hearing Denied Sept. 13, 1956.

Walhfred Jacobson, City Atty., Joseph B. Lamb, Asst. City Atty., Clemons C. Turner, Deputy City Atty., Long Beach, for appellant.

Will H. Winston, Long Beach, for respondent.

MOORE, Presiding Justice.

The city appeals from a judgment of $5,000 awarded respondent as damages allegedly sustained as a result of the construction of certain highway improvements on the street abutting respondent's parcel of land. Such parcel is a part of the Inner Harbor Tract in the City of Long Beach. The three lots comprising it were purchased in 1946, 1947, and 1948. They are situate at the northeast corner of West Anaheim Street and Harbor Avenue where respondent is now, and for some years past has been engaged in the general auto parts business.

Between August 1950 and July 1953, appellant demolished the old Anaheim Street bridge over the Los Angeles Flood Control Channel located about three blocks to the east of plaintiff's property, and constructed a new bridge. The westerly approaches to the new bridge were constructed in conjunction with the southerly extension of the Long Beach Freeway which runs parallel with and along the westerly edge of the Flood Control Channel.

Prior to the completion of this construction, respondent's property fronted upon, and was known as 1361, West Anaheim Street. That street was approximately 137 feet wide from property line to property line. The front of respondent's property was improved with a curb, located approximately 24 feet south of and out from the property line. Harbor Avenue is 80 feet in width and is adjacent to the west line of respondent's land. The next intersecting streets to the east were Fashion Avenue, Pico Avenue, and the Flood Control Channel, respectively. However, in conjunction with the demolition of the old Anaheim Street bridge, the city constructed a cloverleaf system of outlets from the Long Beach Freeway which lies to the east of respondent's property. One of these outlets now passes directly in front of such property, emptying into Anaheim Street at Harbor Avenue, immediately to the west of respondent's land. Fashion Avenue, formerly the next street intersecting Anaheim to the east of Harbor Avenue, now no longer intersects Anaheim at all, but rather merges into the aforementioned freeway outlet to the east of respondent's place and north of Anaheim Street. Thus, an automobile proceeding south on Fashion to the north of Anaheim will pass into the freeway outlet and joint its traffic flowing westerly past respondent's property and merging with Anaheim Street at Harbor Avenue. The situation now, looking southerly from respondent's property which formerly abutted Anaheim Street, is (1) the property line, (2) a sidewalk 12 feet wide, (3) the 33.7-foot, three-lane freeway outlet, (4) a concrete construction nine inches high and approximately 5 feet wide which separates the merging outlet from Anaheim Street for about 300 feet before they converge at Harbor Avenue, and (5) the three northerly lanes of Anaheim Street which carry its westbound traffic.

NOTE: OPINION CONTAINS TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE

View to the west from Anaheim Street Bridge toward intersection of Anaheim Street and Harbor Avenue. The freeway outlet is to the right of the picture. Arrow indicates the Blumenstein property.

Following the construction of these public improvements, respondent brought this action in inverse condemnation (see Rose v. State of California, 19 Cal.2d 713, 123 P.2d 505) for $15,000 damages allegedly caused by the construction of the improvements. After trial of the action, the court awarded respondent $5,000 damages, from which award comes this appeal.

The first assignment is that as a matter of law, respondent did not sustain a compensable damage within the meaning of Article I, § 14 of the State Constitution which reads in part:

'Private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation having first been made to, or paid into court for, the owner * * *.'

Since there is no issue of a taking of plaintiff's property, the first question for decision is whether his property has been damaged by the construction of the bridge and freeway outlet in such a manner as to render the detriment suffered compensable under law. The property right assertedly damaged is respondent's easement of access from his property to the abutting highway and to the free and continuous use thereof. This right of ingress and egress attaches to the lot and is a right of property as fully as the lot itself, rather than a mere interest possessed by the public in general in the use of public roads. People v. Ricciardi, 23 Cal.2d 390, 397, 144 P.2d 799; Eachus v. Los Angeles, etc., Ry. Co., 103 Cal. 614, 617, 37 P. 750; Dillon on Municipal Corporations, sec. 712. An act of the municipality for the benefit of the public which destroys or substantially impairs such easement is damage to the lot itself within the meaning of Article I, § 14 of the State Constitution. People v. Ricciardi, supra. Just what is substantial impairment of the easement which will be compensable under law is a problem to be solved by an analysis of the decisions since no statutory or constitutional authority affords an adequate definition.

The identical problem as to the proper factors to be included in evaluating the detriment suffered by reason of public improvements has confronted the Supreme Court on prior occasions. In People v. Ricciardi, supra, the property involved fronted the highway a short distance from a grade crossing constructed by the state agencies on the adjacent highway. In order to eliminate the grade crossing the major portion of the highway was diverted underground a short distance from the intersection, but attained the level of the injured property a short distance beyond it. In order that the owner might not be deprived of access to his property, local 'service roads' were constructed on both sides of the underpass. As a result, the property which had formerly fronted directly upon the main highway found itself adjoining a service road 30 feet wide and thereby separated from the main highway. The court affirmed a judgment for damages 'based on diversion of the highway from direct access to defendants' property.' People v. Ricciardi, 23 Cal.2d 390, 399, 144 P.2d 799, 804.

The 'service roads' beside the Ricciardi land were 30 feet wide, or substantially the same as the road which serves as an outlet from the freeway and which blocks Blumenstein from the enjoyment of his easement of access to Anaheim Street. While the service road abutting Ricciardi's premises converged with the main highway on both sides of the underpass, that fact was not sufficient to overcome the diversion of such highway from its former position when contiguous to the injured land. A copy of a relief map of the Ricciardi premises, the intersection and the service roads accompanies the opinion on page 409 of 23 Cal.2d, on page 809 of 144 P.2d. The majority of the court held that the defendant's easement of ingress and egress had been substantially impaired. The rationale of the decision is that there had not been a noncompensable rerouting of traffic away from the highway abutting upon Ricciardi's property; neither was it the construction of a competing highway which siphoned off traffic that would otherwise have proceeded along the abutting highway; but on the contrary, it was a situation in which defendant's property no longer abutted upon the main highway as formerly but rather, following the construction of the underpass and the 'service roads' was removed from contract with the main highway. He no longer had access to the highway which had formerly lain...