Schrock v. King County
| Decision Date | 18 February 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 35127,35127 |
| Citation | 55 Wn.2d 655,349 P.2d 594 |
| Parties | , 2 A.L.R.3d 979 Samuel D. SCHROCK, Jr., and Helen U. Schrock, his wife, Respondents, v. KING COUNTY, a municipal corporation, Appellant. Roy E. FOISTER and Marjorie I. Foister, his wife, Respondents, v. KING COUNTY, a municipal corporation, Appellant. Garth L. PUTNAM and Ethel Mae Putnam, his wife, Respondents, v. KING COUNTY, a municipal corporation, Appellant. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Charles O. Carroll, Pros, Atty., Charles R. Lonergan, Jr., Seattle, for appellant.
Casey & Pruzan, Jack M. Sawyer, Seattle, for respondents.
This is a consolidated action by several persons who own real property abutting on a county road located slightly north of Seattle and now designated as 'North 167th Street.' The roadway was dedicated by plat as a sixty-foot wide public road, on September 27, 1909, by the predecessors in interest of the plaintiffs. However, it was not until 1957 that a grade line was determined by the King county road engineer and adopted by resolution of the King county board of county commissioners. In March 1957, a road was constructed on the dedicated roadway in conformance with the resolution. The plaintiff claim that this construction constituted a change by the county of an established grade. They seek damages under Art. I, § 16, (amendment 9), of the Washington state constitution, wherein it is provided that no private property shall be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation having first been paid.
King County contends that the grade line, established in 1957, was an original grade, and the county is not liable for the establishment of it. Fletcher v. Seattle, 1906, 43 Wash. 627, 86 P. 1046, 88 P. 843. The respondent landholders recognize as controlling the ruling in the Fletcher case--that a municipality or county shall not be held liable for damages resulting from the establishment of an original grade. Further, the damage-claimants concede that, prior to 1957, the county had never established a grade for north 167th street by resolution. They assert, however, that around the year 1930 the county made certain improvements to the dedicated roadway to permit usage by automobiles, including the making of cuts and fills, and that this constituted the establishment of an original grade.
After a trial on the merits, the trial judge entered findings to the effect that such improvements had been made; that the county had adopted and accepted the resulting grade as an original grade; and that by the granting of building permits, which included access rights to the road, to the damage-claimants confirmed the existing level of the road as an established original grade. The 1957 construction work, which it is conceded altered the then existing level of the road, was, therefore, found to constitute a change in an original or established grade. Judgment was entered for the damage-claimants in the sum of $2,500, each. This was based on the ground that the interference with access to respondents' land, caused by the 1957 construction work, had depreciated the value of each parcel of land in that amount. The county has appealed.
In Sargent v. Tacoma, 1894, 10 Wash. 212, 38 P. 1048, this court held that an original grade might be established either by formal adoption of a grade by ordinance or resolution, or by the actual improvement of a street, establishing a certain grade. The county admits this principle, but urges that the evidence in the instant case brings the case within the rule laid down in Jones v. Gillis, 1913, 75 Wash. 688, 135 P. 627, 137 P. 819, in which we held that improvements of a temporary nature, made so that the road might be used in its then condition, did not constitute the establishment of a grade. In Jones, the crucial factor was held to be the intent of the legislative body of the governmental unit involved. A paper grade was adopted by formal resolution in 1878; but the street in question was not leveled to that grade until 1904. In the meantime, however, the city caused some macadam to be placed on the roadway and made certain fills. We held that this action did not evidence an intent to change the grade which had been previously established; and, therefore, that the construction work of 1904, leveling the street to conform with the paper grade of 1878, did...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Veldwyk v. City of Seattle, No. 57340-3-I (Wash. App. 5/29/2007)
...altered at some future date without paying abutting landowners compensation for interference with their access." Schrock v. King County, 55 Wn.2d 655, 658, 349 P.2d 594 (1960). In Schrock, the roadway had been dedicated by plat in 1909, but the county did not adopt a resolution fixing a gra......
-
Dickson v. City of Pullman
...or damaging under article 1, section 16 (amendment 9) of the Washington State Constitution, and is not actionable. Schrock v. King County, 55 Wash.2d 655, 349 P.2d 594 (1960); Hagen v. Seattle, Supra; Hollenbeck v. Seattle, 88 Wash. 322, 153 P. 18 In the instant case the original grade and ......
-
Chapter § 3.2 - Lateral Support
...and the actual physical grading of the right-of-way does not give rise to a cause of action for loss of access. Schrock v. King County, 55 Wn.2d 655, 657-59, 349 P.2d 594 (1960) (road dedicated in 1909 did not have grade line established until A municipality may be liable for damages due to......
-
Table of Cases
...927, 169 P.3d 452 (2007): 10.1(1) Schoonover v. Carpet World, Inc., 91 Wn.2d 173, 588 P.2d 729 (1978): 18.3(1) Schrock v. King County, 55 Wn.2d 655, 349 P.2d 594 (1960): 3.2(2)(b)(ii) Schroeder v. Excelsior Mgmt. Grp., 177 Wn.2d 94, 297 P.3d 677 (2013): 17.3(1)(c)(iii) Schultheis v. Schulth......