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
TRAYNOR, J.
I dissent for reasons set forth in my dissenting opinion in Bacich v. Board of Control, ante, p. 343 [ 144 P.2d 818 ].
Appellant’s petition for a rehearing was denied January 17, 1944. Curtis, J., Edmonds, J., and Traynor, J., voted for a rehearing.