noting that under California law, property owners abutting a public roadway “possess ... an easement of reasonable view of their property from such highway” and, although an abutting landowner has no right to compensation by reason of diversion of traffic away from its property, a landowner could introduce evidence that the loss of visibility caused by the taking affected the market value of the remaining property
How later courts described this case
- noting that under California law, property owners abutting a public roadway “possess ... an easement of reasonable view of their property from such highway” and, although an abutting landowner has no right to compensation by reason of diversion of traffic away from its property, a landowner could introduce evidence that the loss of visibility caused by the taking affected the market value of the remaining property
- it is within province of trial court, not jury, to pass upon question whether landowners’ right of access is substantially impaired; if so, extent of impairment is for jury to determine
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*427 CURTIS, J.
I concur in the conclusion reached in the dissenting opinion.