Gorrill v. City of Lawrence

• Decision Date: 05 March 1966
• Docket Number: No. 44318,44318
• Parties: Robert B. GORRILL and Billie L. Gorrill, Appellees and Cross-Appellants, v. CITY OF LAWRENCE, Kansas, a Municipal Corporation, Appellant and Cross-Appellee.
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Page 704

411 P.2d 704

196 Kan. 303

Robert B. GORRILL and Billie L. Gorrill, Appellees and Cross-Appellants, v. CITY OF LAWRENCE, Kansas, a Municipal Corporation, Appellant

and Cross-Appellee.

No. 44318.

Supreme Court of Kansas.

March 5, 1966.

Syllabus by the Court

In order to promote the public safety and to eliminate a serious traffic hazard, a city of the first class, through appropriate resolutions and ordinances, proposed to remedy the situation--all as detailed in the opinion. Plaintiffs, being abutting landowners on a street to be affected, brought an action to enjoin the city from proceeding with the proposal until such time as it acquired their interest therein by purchase or through appropriate eminent domain proceedings. Injunctive relief was granted. Held: (1) The city is authorized and empowered to carry out the proposal in question, (2) if plaintiffs suffer any damage to their property their remedy is by an independent action for damages, and (3) injunctive relief against the city was erroneously granted.

John W. Brand, Jr., Lawrence, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellant and cross-appellee.

Byron E. Springer, Lawrence, argued the cause, and Chas. A. Springer, Lawrence, was with him on the brief for appellees and cross-appellants.

PRICE, Justice.

This is an action by adjacent property owners to enjoin the city of Lawrence from narrowing, vacating or otherwise reducing the present paved width of a street.

The trial court held that the city should be enjoined until such time as it acquired the interest of the plaintiffs therein by purchase or through appropriate eminent domain proceedings.

Both sides have appealed.

The facts material for disposition of the case are not in dispute.

Iowa Street is a principal north-south street in the west part of Lawrence. Because of its location, its connection with the Kansas Turnpike, and its designation as a federal highway--traffic is very heavy. Highland Drive is a north-south street one block east of Iowa. They are connected by Ninth Street, an east-west street, which, between Iowa and Highland, is paved to a width of 31 feet. A traffic problem was created because of the existence of a shopping center on the west side of Iowa which blocked the extension of Ninth straight across and on west of Iowa from the point where Ninth enters Iowa from the east, as a result of which the extension of Ninth to the west of Iowa was constructed at a point approximately 130 feet north of the point where Ninth enters Iowa from the east. In other words, west bound traffic on Ninth must turn north on Iowa and go about 130 feet and then make a left turn in order to proceed west on Ninth--and of course just the reverse is true of traffic approaching Iowa from the west on Ninth desiring to continue east on Ninth.

Plaintiffs own the lots just east of Iowa on the south side of Ninth, and a gas service station is located thereon. The APCO Oil Company owns the lots just east of Iowa on the north side of Ninth, and operates a gas service station thereon.

In order to promote the public safety and to eliminate the serious traffic hazard created by the 'jog' in Ninth, the city, through appropriate resolutions and ordinances, proposed to reroute Ninth from its intersection with Highland so that it would angle to the north and west and intersect the east side of Iowa directly across from the extension of Ninth west of Iowa. The proposal also included control of the new intersection of Ninth and Iowa by traffic lights, to narrow the width of Ninth to 17 feet from Iowa to Highland by moving the north curb line of Ninth to the south a sufficient distance to accomplish the same, and to make such narrowed portion of Ninth a one-way street east. The plan was submitted to and approved by the traffic and safety department of the State Highway Commission.

Plaintiffs brought this action alleging that defendant city had entered into an unlawful agreement with the APCO Oil Company concerning the proposed change in the street, that the city had no power to enter into an agreement with a private individual or corporation to narrow or vacate a public street for a consideration; that it had no power to narrow or vacate a public street for the benefit of a private individual or corporation; that it had no power to narrow a street, and that it had no power to narrow or vacate a public street where such narrowing or vacation will cause irreparable damage to an abutting landowner. The prayer was that the city be enjoined from narrowing, vacating or otherwise reducing the present paved width of Ninth Street between Iowa Street and Highland Drive, and for such other relief as may be just and equitable.

The answer denied generally, and alleged that the ordinances in question were passed to remove a traffic hazard and that such action by the city was taken in the public interest and was a legitimate exercise of its police power.

The reply denied generally, and prayed that the particular ordinances in question be declared null and void and that the city be enjoined from carrying out the proposal, and asked for the full relief prayed for in the petition.

Following a full hearing the trial court filed a detailed memorandum in the nature of findings of fact and conclusions of...