Yes. Using a path only a few times a year is considered 'continuous' enough if that's how a typical person would use that kind of property. To get a permanent right to use a path (called an 'easement'), you have to show you used it openly, without permission, and continuously for at least 10 years. The court said that Walsh and his dad using the path every year from 1946 to 1957 to get firewood was perfectly normal for a woodlot. Since that was longer than 10 years and they did it without anyone's permission, they legally earned the right to use the path forever, long before Palisades even owned the land.

Yes, Walsh showed enough proof. He and his family used the road openly, without asking permission, and continuously for more than the ten years needed. It didn't matter that they only used the road sometimes to get wood, because that's what any owner would do with the land. Walsh didn't need the landowners' permission, and he didn't have to be the only one using the road. I believe Walsh has proven he earned the right to use the road. The trial court judge carefully looked at all the evidence and testimony, and we should trust his findings. There is plenty of evidence to show Walsh earned the right to use the road on the plaintiffs' land.

One who claims an easement by prescription bears the burden of establishing actual, open, notorious, hostile, and continuous use under a claim of right for at least ten years.

The same prescriptive easement may be claimed by different people as long as the individuals distinguish their use from the use of others.

In analyzing the elements required for a prescriptive easement, this Court may look to cases involving adverse possession because both legal doctrines share common elements of proof.

"It is clear that even `long-continued use by footpassers over the [way]*** cannot establish an easement***.'"

As this Court has said, factual determinations are generally necessary to determine whether claimants have established the elements of a prescriptive easement.

The determination of whether the claimant has sustained this burden is "an exercise of the [trial justice's] fact-finding power."

This case is nothing more than a failure of proof on the part of the state that bore the heavy burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence that it possessed a portion of the lake bottom and had acquired a prescriptive easement to use the lake for recreational purposes and that its possession was open, notorious, hostile and under a claim of right for the full …

Yes. A party's seasonal use of a path across another's property satisfies the 'continuous use' requirement for a prescriptive easement when such use is consistent with the character of the property being accessed. To establish an easement by prescription in Rhode Island, a claimant must prove by clear and convincing evidence actual, open, notorious, hostile, and continuous use under a claim of right for ten years. The court found that Walsh's testimony, corroborated by another witness, established that he and his father openly, adversely, and continuously used the trail to reach their woodlot every year from 1946 until 1957, a period exceeding the ten-year statutory requirement. The court reasoned that 'continuous' use does not mean constant use; rather, the claimant need only act toward the land as an average owner would, taking into account the nature of the land. Using a path a few times a year to access a woodlot is consistent with the typical use of such property. The court also dismissed the plaintiff's other arguments, clarifying that exclusivity is not a required element for a prescriptive easement, unlike for adverse possession, and that there was no evidence the use was permissive.

Yes. The evidence was sufficient to establish an easement by prescription because Walsh and his predecessors had openly, adversely, and continuously used the trail to reach the woodlot every year from 1946 until 1957, satisfying the ten-year requirement. The seasonal use of the rural path did not impair Walsh's claim, as it was consistent with the use an average owner would make of the land. The hostile use of the path was not dependent on permission from the landowners, and exclusivity of use is not a necessary element for a valid claim to an easement by prescription. I find that Walsh has met his burden of proving the elements of a prescriptive easement by clear and convincing evidence. The trial justice carefully considered the testimony and evidence presented, and his factual findings are entitled to great weight. There is ample evidence in the record to support the conclusion that Walsh acquired an easement by prescription over the plaintiffs' land.

Palisades Sales Corp. v. Walsh

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot