Walker v. State
48 Wash. 2d 587, 295 P.2d 328, 1956 Wash. LEXIS 395 (1956)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state's regulation of traffic flow under its police power, such as installing a median divider that results in a more circuitous route to an abutting property, is not a compensable taking or damaging of the property owner's right of ingress and egress.
Facts:
- Plaintiffs own and operate a motel on a property that abuts the south side of a four-lane highway, with its only access being a 500-foot frontage on that highway.
- A significant portion of the motel's customers consists of tourists traveling in a westerly direction.
- These westbound customers were required to make a left turn across eastbound traffic lanes to enter the motel property.
- The Washington State Highway Commission planned to install a raised concrete curb along the center line of the highway.
- This curb would physically prevent westbound traffic from making a left turn directly into the plaintiffs' motel.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs sued the State Highway Commission in the trial court, seeking to enjoin the installation of a median curb.
- Plaintiffs requested that if the curb were installed, a jury should determine their damages for the alleged taking of access.
- The trial court sustained the defendants' demurrer to the plaintiffs' amended complaint, finding it did not state a valid cause of action.
- Plaintiffs declined to amend their complaint further.
- The trial court entered a judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' action with prejudice.
- Plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed the dismissal to the Supreme Court of Washington.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the installation of a median curb in the center of a highway, which prevents westbound traffic from making a left turn into an abutting property, constitute a compensable taking or damaging of the property owner's right of access under the state constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Weaver, J.
No, the installation of a median curb is a non-compensable exercise of the state's police power, not a taking or damaging of a property right. While property owners have a right to free and convenient access to the abutting street, they do not have a vested property right in the continuation or maintenance of a specific flow of traffic past their property. The curb does not eliminate access; it merely makes the route for some travelers more circuitous. Once on the highway, a property owner is subject to the same traffic regulations as any other member of the public. Such regulations, aimed at public safety and traffic control, are a valid exercise of police power, and any resulting inconvenience or economic damage is not compensable unless the state's action is arbitrary or capricious.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a crucial distinction between a compensable 'taking' of property access and a non-compensable regulation of traffic flow. It solidifies the government's authority to implement traffic safety measures, like medians and one-way streets, without incurring liability for the economic impact on adjacent businesses. The case clarifies that the right of access is to the street system itself, not to a particular pattern of traffic. This precedent protects the government's ability to manage public roads for the general welfare, forcing future claimants to prove a substantial or complete elimination of access, rather than mere inconvenience or 'circuity of route,' to succeed in a takings claim.
