SW Legal Educational Publishing

Loss of Direct Access to Property from Highway Not Compensable Taking
Description Change in highway design meant that property owner would have a less convenient way in and out of their property. Kansas high court held that such loss of access is not inverse condemnation that requires compensation. The state balances various interests in designing highways for public safety.
Topic Real and Personal Property
Key Words Inverse Condemnation; Compensation
C A S E   S U M M A R Y
Facts A change in the construction of a highway meant that a landowner would lose his long available direct access to his land from the highway. He would have to drive further and double back to get to his property. He sued the state, claiming inverse condemnation that required compensation for loss in land value due to less favorable access. Trial court held that no compensation was due; land owner appealed.
Decision Affirmed. Blockage of highway accesses, such as across medians, "is a proper exercise of the police power and does not constitute a compensable taking under the power of eminent domain." The state must balance public interests and safety in highway construction and need not compensate every party that is adversely affected by changes in highway design.
Citation Eberth v. Carlson, - P.2d - (1999 WL 45178, Sup. Ct., Kan.)

Back to Real and Personal Property Listings

©1997-2000  South-Western, a division of Cengage Learning, Inc. Cengage Learning is a trademark used herein under license.