Richards v. State Highway Commission

• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: BROWN
• Citation: Richards v. State Highway Commission, 111 N.W.2d 505, 14 Wis.2d 597 (Wis. 1961)
• Decision Date: 31 October 1961
• Parties: Ralph M. RICHARDS et al., Respondents, v. STATE of Wisconsin, (HIGHWAY COMMISSION), Appellant.

Page 505

111 N.W.2d 505

14 Wis.2d 597

Ralph M. RICHARDS et al., Respondents, v. STATE of Wisconsin, (HIGHWAY COMMISSION), Appellant.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Oct. 31, 1961.

The facts are given in the opinion.

John W. Reynolds, Atty. Gen., William H. Wilker, A. J. Feifarek, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellant.

Bogue & Sanderson, Portage, for respondents.

BROWN, Justice.

Plaintiffs own a farm in Columbia county. The state highway commission condemned a strip 300 feet in width, running approximately north and south through the farm, for the construction of an interstate highway. A town road running east and west already lay along the north boundary of plaintiffs' land. This road would intersect the interstate highway and to improve the town road and bring it across the interstate highway by an overpass to be constructed the commission condemned an additional part of the farm adjoining the town road.

Interstate Highway cut off a substantial part of the farm from the remainder, including the farm buildings. Plaintiffs now have to travel a circuitous route via the town road and overpass to go from the buildings to portions of the farm which lies on the far side of the interstate highway. Plaintiffs produced credible evidence tending to prove that operation of the farm which plaintiffs retained, divided into two segments thus separated by the construction of the interstate and the town highways, was attended with very substantial inconveniences. For example, stock pastured in the fields beyond the highway could not well be adequately supervised and guarded, nor given water, nor conveniently brought back to the barnyard at nightfall. The convenient, efficient use of vehicles and farm machinery in cultivating the crops in the severed portion was also substantially impaired.

In its charge to the jury the trial court directed the jury to find (1) the fair market value of the Richards' farm, considered as a whole and including the parcel taken for highway purposes, immediately before such taking, and (2) the fair market value of the farm, considered as a whole and excluding the parcel taken immediately after such taking. Appellant does not object to that part of the instructions but does insist that the court erred when it charged as follows:

'Damages resulting from the inconvenience occasioned by the construction work does not constitute a compensable item in the sense that you will separately find that damage, but it is an item to be taken into consideration by you in determining the value of the property after the taking.'

This court has considered substantially the same issue in Carazalla v. State, 1955, ...