Guy v. State
438 A.2d 1250, 1981 Del. Super. LEXIS 578 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An easement is not extinguished by merger when the holder of the fee simple title does not have unity of possession, and the party retaining possession remains bound by the easement's covenants. Furthermore, a possessor of land may be liable for negligence or public nuisance if conditions on their land, such as crops obstructing a roadway view, create an unreasonable risk of harm to travelers.
Facts:
- In 1956, Clifford and Mary Ennis granted a 'daylighting' easement to the State of Delaware, covenanting not to obstruct the clear view over their farmland at the intersection of Routes 9 and 6.
- On July 27, 1977, the Ennises conveyed the farm to the State of Delaware (DNREC).
- The deed reserved to the Ennises a life estate, which included the right to reside on the property and to grow corn or soybeans on all tillable acres.
- Pursuant to an oral agreement with the Ennises, George Wilson planted corn on the farmland.
- The corn was planted up to the shoulder of the road, obstructing the view at the northeast corner of the intersection of Routes 9 and 6.
- On August 28, 1977, the plaintiffs' vehicle was involved in a collision with a vehicle driven by Deborah Coverdale at that intersection.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiffs filed suit in the Superior Court of Delaware (trial court) against Clifford and Mary Ennis, Deborah Coverdale, and George Wilson for injuries sustained in an automobile accident.
- The complaint against the Ennises included counts for breach of easement covenants (Count I), negligence (Count II), and public nuisance (Count V).
- Defendants Clifford and Mary Ennis moved for summary judgment on all three counts against them.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Are former landowners who retain a life estate with possessory rights to farm land liable for injuries from a vehicle collision allegedly caused by crops obstructing a roadway view, where they had previously granted a 'daylighting' easement to keep the view clear and subsequently sold the land to the state?
Opinions:
Majority - Tease, Judge.
Yes, former landowners who retain possessory rights may be held liable. The court denied the Ennises' motion for summary judgment, finding that triable issues of fact exist regarding their liability under theories of breach of easement, negligence, and public nuisance. The court reasoned that the easement was not extinguished by merger because the State, while holding title, did not have the right to possession and enjoyment, which the Ennises retained. The Ennises, by remaining in possession, were still bound by the covenant not to obstruct the view. A factual question also exists as to whether the Ennises, as possessors of the land, were negligent in allowing the corn to create an unreasonable risk of harm to highway travelers. Finally, because a state statute defines a 'public road' to include anything 'accessory' to its use, the obstruction of the 'daylighting' easement could constitute a public nuisance for which the Ennises could be held liable.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the application of the merger doctrine, establishing that unity of title is insufficient to extinguish an easement without a corresponding unity of possession and enjoyment. It reinforces the principle that covenants running with the land bind those with possessory interests, not just title holders, preventing parties from evading obligations by transferring title while retaining control. The opinion also expands the scope of potential landowner liability for conditions on their property by affirming that visual obstructions adjacent to a highway can form the basis for claims of negligence and public nuisance if they endanger travelers.
