Hadfield v. State ex rel. Burns

• Decision Date: 19 November 1963
• Docket Number: No. 9297,9297
• Citation: Hadfield v. State ex rel. Burns, 388 P.2d 1018, 86 Idaho 561 (Idaho 1963)
• Parties: Lynn HADFIELD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE of Idaho on relation of Wallace C. BURNS, Ernest F. Gaffney and R. Doyle Symms, the Board of Highway Directors, Defendants-Respondents.
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

Page 1018

388 P.2d 1018

86 Idaho 561

Lynn HADFIELD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE of Idaho on relation of Wallace C. BURNS, Ernest F. Gaffney and R. Doyle Symms, the Board of Highway Directors, Defendants-Respondents.

No. 9297.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

Nov. 19, 1963.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 12, 1964.

L. F. Racine, Jr., Pocatello, for appellant.

Faber F. Tway, Chief Legal Counsel and Anton Hohler, Department of Highways, Boise, for respondents.

KNUDSON, Chief Justice.

Appellant, as plaintiff, commenced this action to recover temporary and permanent damages to his real property which abuts upon and has a frontage of approximately 150 feet on, Gould Street, in Pocatello, Idaho, upon which property he operates a service station. It is alleged in appellant's complaint, that on May 10, 1962, defendant-respondent commenced reconstruction of Gould Street for the purpose of making it a 4-lane divided highway; that during the course of construction of such highway said street was excavated 3 feet below its former level and the level of appellant's property; thereby destroying egress and ingress to appellant's property; that such condition existed and continued until July 10, 1962.

Appellant further alleged that said construction reduced the accessible frontage on his property to two 40-foot strips, thereby substantially and materially impairing and obstructing access thereto; that respondent built and maintained a raised barrier in the center of the highway, which destroyed egress and ingress to appellant's property, for him and the general public traveling upon said highway in an easterly direction; that appellant suffered temporary total destruction of a means of egress and ingress to his property during the period of construction, and that by reason thereof the market value of his property was depreciated and rendered useless and valueless.

Appellant further alleges as follows:

'That as a result of the alteration of said Gould Street and the frontage to plaintiff's real property by the construction of said divided, four-lane highway, the ingress and egress to plaintiff's real property was and is obstructed and substantially and materially impaired, and by reason thereof, plaintiff's real property has been reduced in value, and plaintiff has suffered damages, in the sum of $100,000.00.'

Appellant also alleges as an 'alternative claim' that respondent has unreasonably and arbitrarily refused the demands of appellant, for a reasonable means of egress and ingress to his property, for himself and the general public traveling in an easterly direction, although respondent has allowed a convenient access through said median barrier to other businesses along said highway.

Respondent moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that 'it fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted.' This appeal is from the trial court's order granting said motion.

The motion involved was argued orally before the trial court and also submitted by briefs. The 'Memorandum Decision' of the trial court was filed and constitutes a part of the record before us, and the following quoted paragraph thereof discloses the grounds which were considered by the court:

'The briefs and argument on the motion to dismiss urge three principal grounds for dismissal. These being: One, plaintiff's failure to file a claim with the State Board of Examiners prior to its filing this action; Two, that defendants have no liability for temporary obstruction of egress and ingress during course of construction; and, Three, that the plaintiff is not entitled to damages because of the construction by defendants of a raised medium depriving east bound motorists of access to plaintiff's premises.'

The court concluded that there was no merit to the first ground raised. As concerns the second ground, the court found that no liability was alleged against respondent for temporary obstruction of egress and ingress during the course of construction, since appellant did not allege that the period of time was unreasonable or that the obstruction or construction itself was unreasonable or arbitrary. In considering the third ground, the court concluded that appellant had no vested right in the continuation or maintenance of the flow of traffic past his property and that rerouting and diversion of traffic are police power regulations.

This court has endorsed the accepted rule that a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim, unless it clearly appears that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. Wackerli v. Martindale, 82 Idaho 400, 353, P.2d 782; Conley v. Gibson, 355, U.S. 41, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80.

During the oral presentation of this case to this court, counsel for appellant stated in effect that appellant no longer seeks damages allegedly resulting from the installation and maintenance of the raised barrier in the middle of the highway referred to in paragraph IX of appellant's complaint, and consequently we will not further consider any such alleged claim for damages.

We have hereinbefore quoted paragraph XI of appellant's complaint, wherein it is alleged in substance that as a result of the alteration and construction performed by respondent, the egress and ingress to appellant's property was, and is, obstructed and substantially and materially impaired.

Under Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure, a motion to dismiss the complaint because of a failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, admits the facts alleged in the complaint, and the court, in ruling the sufficiency of the complaint, must construe the same in the light most favorable to the pleader. Williams v. Williams, 82 Idaho 451, 354 P.2d 747.

This court has long recognized that access to a public way is one of the incidents of ownership of land bounding thereon; that such right of access constitutes an interest in, and is appurtenant to, the land. It is a vested right of which the property owner cannot be deprived without just compensation. Mabe v. State, 83 Idaho 222, 360 P.2d 799; Farris v. City of Twin Falls, 81 Idaho 583, 347 P.2d 996.

In Hughes v. State, 80 Idaho 286, 328 P.2d 397, this court stated:

'We therefore hold that appellants' allegedly destroyed right of business access to their business property, if such be proven, constituted a taking of their property, whether or not accompanied by a taking of physical property, and constituted an element of damage, as does also any element of alleged taking of their physical property, which must be ascertained and assessed in accordance with the legislative mandate of I.C. sec. 7-711.'

In Farris v. City of Twin Falls, supra, this court had under consideration a like question as is here presented, and held that

'Appellants having alleged, among other things, that respondent city caused to be constructed an obstruction to the entrance to their property and that by reason thereof the reasonable market value of such property has been damaged and decreased, the complaint states a cause of action and it was reversible error to sustain the general demurrer.'

By applying the hereinbefore mentioned rule of construction, it is clear that it was error to dismiss appellant's complaint.

In appellant's brief (sec. 111 of Argument), it is stated that 'temporary loss of access caused by an unreasonable delay in construction or the unreasonable and arbitrary manner of the construction, is compensable.' We feel...