Department of Transp. v. Whitehead, 66238
Decision Date | 14 November 1983 |
Docket Number | No. 66238,66238 |
Citation | 169 Ga.App. 226,312 S.E.2d 344 |
Parties | DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION v. WHITEHEAD. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
J. Matthew Dwyer, Jr., Atlanta, Michael J. Bowers, Atty. Gen., Robert S. Stubbs, Executive Asst. Atty. Gen., Marion O. Gordon, First Asst. Atty. Gen., John R. Strother, Jr., Thomas C. Dempsey, Beryl H. Weiner, Roland F. Matson, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellant.
Harry L. Cashin, Jr., Atlanta, for appellee.
This is a condemnation case in which the Department of Transportation (DOT), as condemnor, filed petition to take for public purposes a portion of property belonging to condemnee Cecil S. Whitehead, Jr. located at the corner of 19th Street and Peachtree Street near Pershing Point in Atlanta. Although the subject property has a West Peachtree Street address, part of that frontage is on Peachtree Street; West Peachtree Street and Peachtree Street merge at Pershing Point. The property condemned consisted of 5,540 square feet, taken from a total of 37,774 square feet, and constituted condemnee's entire road frontage on Peachtree/West Peachtree Street. DOT also acquired an adjoining temporary construction easement of 2,549 square feet of the remaining property. These takings were in connection with the construction of an entrance ramp to what will be the Buford Highway Connector (a limited-access highway) across the entire Peachtree/West Peachtree Street frontage of condemnee's property. There will be no vehicular access from condemnee's remaining property directly onto the ramp or onto Peachtree/West Peachtree Street after the ramp has been constructed; pedestrian access will continue. Upon completion of the ramp's construction, 19th Street will be permanently closed at its intersection with Peachtree Street, although access to the property will continue via 19th Street from Spring Street.
The jury returned a verdict in favor of condemnee in the amounts of $55,400 as the value of the property taken; $8,500 as the value of the easement taken; $67,000 as consequential damages to the remaining property with no consequential benefits to the remaining property. From the judgment entered upon this verdict and the denial of its motion for new trial, DOT brings this appeal.
1. DOT's first enumeration cites as error the trial court's admitting evidence concerning circuity of travel and general inconvenience to those using condemnee's property due to the closing of 19th Street at Peachtree Street. Before the taking condemnee's property was a corner lot with frontage on both Peachtree/West Peachtree Street and 19th Street. Condemnee had direct, unobstructed access to both streets, although the Peachtree/West Peachtree frontage was six feet above the grade of the street, and the only vehicular access provided and utilized was a driveway and parking lot located on the western portion of the property off of 19th Street. Vehicular access to 19th Street was available from either Spring Street or Peachtree/West Peachtree Street (both two-way streets). The actual taking by DOT was a strip of condemnee's property along the entire Peachtree/West Peachtree frontage and a portion of the 19th Street frontage at its intersection with Peachtree Street. The construction proposed as of the date of taking as it relates to the property taken was shown by certain exhibits and related testimony tendered into evidence by DOT without objection. This evidence showed that a portion of an entrance ramp to the Buford Highway Connector would be constructed on the property taken. As a result of this construction, vehicular access to condemnee's remaining Peachtree/West Peachtree Street frontage would be entirely eliminated. In addition, 19th Street would be closed at Peachtree Street, leaving Spring Street as the only remaining route by which vehicular access would be available to 19th Street and, thus, to condemnee's property. The evidence also showed that West Peachtree Street would become one-way north and Spring Street would become one-way south. As a result of this evidence, condemnee was allowed to present the evidence complained of which related to the circuity of travel and inconvenience to those attempting to use the remaining property resulting from the proposed construction. The construction was projected to be completed in three to six years.
State Hwy. Dept. v. Irvin, 100 Ga.App. 624, 626, 112 S.E.2d 216 (1959). The thrust of DOT's argument here is that the proposed closing of 19th Street at Peachtree Street and the proposed changes in the traffic patterns on Spring and West Peachtree Streets were damages suffered by all members of the general public and that condemnee's damages therefor differed only in degree from those suffered by the general public. Thus, DOT contends, condemnee suffered no damage special to him alone. Indeed, Dougherty County v. Snelling, 132 Ga.App. 540, 544, 208 S.E.2d 362 (1974), overruled on other grounds Zuber Lumber Co. v. City of Atlanta, 237 Ga. 358, 365, 227 S.E.2d 362 (1976).
However, Felton v. State Hwy. Bd., 47 Ga.App. 615, 616-7, 171 S.E. 198 (1933). " (Emphasis supplied.) Dougherty County v. Hornsby, 213 Ga. 114, 116-7, 97 S.E.2d 300 (1957); see also Cheek v. Floyd County, Ga., 308 F.Supp. 777, 780-1 (N.D.Ga.1970).
Prior to the taking condemnee had an easement of access to and from Peachtree/West Peachtree Street, although vehicular access via this frontage was not being utilized as the frontage was six feet above grade. As a result of the taking, vehicular access via the Peachtree/West Peachtree Street frontage had been completely eliminated and, as a result of the proposed construction, the remaining property would be at grade. Moreover, direct access to Peachtree Street via 19th Street would be cut off as a result of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sharpe v. Department of Transp.
...and testimony are common. See Dunaway v. Columbia County, 213 Ga.App. 840(2), 447 S.E.2d 31 (1994); Department of Transp. v. Whitehead, 169 Ga.App. 226, 230(3), 312 S.E.2d 344 (1983). In this case, the Sharpes' experts assigned a separate value to limestone deposits on the property taken, b......
-
Department of Transp. v. Dalton Paving & Const., Inc.
...and against exclusion, sufficiency not being a test or condition of admissibility. (Cits.)' [Cits.]" Dept. of Transp. v. Whitehead, 169 Ga.App. 226, 231(4), 312 S.E.2d 344 (1983), aff'd, 253 Ga. 150, 317 S.E.2d 542 (1984). Therefore, this Court will not interfere with the trial court's deci......
-
Department of Transp. v. Acree Oil Co.
...not be felt for some time after [completion]. Wright v. MARTA, supra at 375, 283 S.E.2d 466. Likewise, Department of Transp. v. Whitehead, 169 Ga.App. 226, 228(1), 312 S.E.2d 344 (1983) and Department of Transp. v. Delta Machine Prod. Co., 157 Ga.App. 423, 424(1), 278 S.E.2d 73 (1981) deal ......
-
Department of Transp. v. Petkas, s. 76525
...such general "traffic and safety problems" as are usually associated with a high-traffic count. Cf. Department of Transp. v. Whitehead, 169 Ga.App. 226, 231(4), 312 S.E.2d 344 (1983), aff'd 253 Ga. 150, 317 S.E.2d 542 Thus, the trial court's ruling had the erroneous and harmful effect of pr......