South Carolina State Highway Dept. v. Carodale Associates
Decision Date | 18 May 1977 |
Docket Number | No. 20433,20433 |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | The SOUTH CAROLINA STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, Appellant, v. CARODALE ASSOCIATES and Arthur Keels, Respondents. |
Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod, Asst. Atty. Gen. A. Camden Lewis, Donald V. Myers and William F. Austin, Columbia, for appellant.
Michael H. Quinn, Columbia, for respondents.
This is an appeal involving the condemnation of less than one-half acre of land (.47 acres) by the appellant South Carolina State Highway Department. The Board of Condemnation awarded $14,000.00 and the landowner appealed. A trial de novo resulted in a jury verdict in favor of the landowner in the amount of $117,000.00. We find reversible error of law necessitating a new trial.
The landowner's property was acquired for an exit ramp off Interstate # 77 being constructed in Richland County. A portion of U.S. Highway # 1, fronting on the landowner's property prior to the condemnation, will be relocated creating a cul de sac contiguous to the respondent's land. Access to the relocated U.S. Highway # 1 will be afforded by the construction of a connecting street.
Appellant continuously objected to the admission of testimony relating to diversion of traffic and loss of frontage on the highway. 1 Appellant's motion for a new trial was also premised on this alleged error.
A landowner has no vested right in the continuance of a public highway; the abandonment of a highway, without its being closed, is damnum absque injuria. Wilson v. Greenville County, 110 S.C. 321, 96 S.E. 301 (1918). Likewise, the State is under no duty to maintain a minimum level of traffic flow. 4A Nichols, Eminent Domain, Section 14.244(4). Nonetheless, the vacation of a street or the creation of a cul de sac with the concomitant diversion of traffic and loss of frontage has been held a "taking" of property. City of Rock Hill v. Cothran, 209 S.C. 357, 40 S.E.2d 239 (1946).
Closing a street inherently produces a diversion of traffic and loss of frontage on a viable traffic artery. However, these repercussions are not compensable elements of damage. Succinctly, the restriction of ingress or egress to and from one's property is the right which must be compensated if infringed when a highway is closed by condemnation. South Carolina State Highway Department v. Wilson, 254 S.C. 360, 175 S.E.2d 391 (1970); South Carolina State Highway Department v. Allison, 246 S.C. 389, 143 S.E.2d 800 (1965); Sease v. City of Spartanburg, 242 S.C. 520, 131 S.E.2d 683 (1963); Powell v. Spartanburg County, 136 S.C. 371, 134 S.E. 367 (1926).
The landowner has no property right in the continuation or maintenance of the flow of traffic past its property. Traffic on the highway, to which they have access, is subject to the same police power regulations as every other member of the traveling public. Re-routing and diversion of traffic are police power regulations. 42 A.L.R.3d 148, 163; Woodland Market Realty v. City of Cleveland, 426 F.2d 955 (6th Cir. 1970); Hollis v. Armour & Company, 190 S.C. 170, 179, 2 S.E.2d 681 (1939); 8 South Carolina Digest, Eminent Domain, k 2(1).
We agree with the appellant that testimony relating to alleged damages for which restitution is not recognized at law was erroneous and prejudicial dictating a new trial.
Since it is probable the same questions will arise at the next trial, we consider the following exceptions.
Appellant asserts error in the refusal of the court to accept or charge the "scope-of-the-project test." The trial court ruled the test was not recognized in South Carolina. We need not reach this issue as the test, even if cognizable in this State, is not applicable to the instant case. Mr. Justice Stewart in United States v. Reynolds, 397 U.S. 14, 90 S.Ct. 803, 25 L.Ed.2d 12 (1970) fully discussed the precept:
397 U.S. at 16-17, 90 S.Ct. at 805.
The facts of this case do not disclose a bifurcated condemnation with an intervening enhancement of property values attributable to the project. The "scope-of-the-project test" was created to prevent escalated or depressed prices of purchases due to the condemnation project when later acquired land was initially contemplated by the project. In Reynolds over 250 acres of land was condemned to create a reservoir. The case concerned 78 acres of the land taken for construction of recreational facilities which was not referred to in the initial design memorandum:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Malone v. Com.
...393 U.S. 1049, 89 S.Ct. 685, 21 L.Ed.2d 693 (1969); Heil v. Allegheny County, 330 Pa. 449 (1938); South Carolina State Highway Dep't v. Carodale Assocs., 268 S.C. 556, 235 S.E.2d 127 (1977); Stefan Auto Body v. State Highway Comm'n, 21 Wis.2d 363, 124 N.W.2d 319 (1963). See generally 4A Nic......
-
Hardin v. South Carolina Dept. of Transp.
...as every other member of the traveling public. Re-routing and diversion of traffic are police power regulations. 268 S.C. 556, 561, 235 S.E.2d 127, 128-29 (1977) (emphasis in original, internal citations Though it does not expressly provide so, Carodale implicitly recognizes that road closi......
-
S.C. Dep't of Transp. v. Powell
...Powell , 415 S.C. at 306–07, 781 S.E.2d at 730. Specifically, the court of appeals relied on South Carolina State Highway Department v. Carodale Associates , 268 S.C. 556, 235 S.E.2d 127 (1977), where this Court held a landowner could recover for damages derived from the physical appropriat......
-
Hardin v. Dept. of Transp.
...of the State's police power without liability to any landowner or member of the public. See South Carolina State Highway Dep't v. Carodale Assocs., 268 S.C. 556, 561, 235 S.E.2d 127, 128 (1977) ("A landowner has no vested right in the continuance of a public highway.... [T]he State is under......
-
The Powers That Be
...Carolina Dep't of Transp., 371 S.C. 598, 606, 641 S.E.2d 437, 442 (2007). [46] South Carolina State Highway Dep't v. Carodale Associates, 268 S.C. 556, 561, 235 S.E.2d 127, 129 (1977) ("Re-routing and diversion of traffic are police power regulations."). [47] Richard Davis Bybee, Recent Inv......