County of Mendocino v. Padula

PEEK, J. Defendants own and operate a sawmill and planing mill on somewhat less than four acres of land located on the western bank of Outlet Creek in Mendocino County. Prior to the present proceeding the property was divided by a county road which wound through it at grade level and eventually led to a bridge crossing the creek. Because of frequent washouts it was decided that a new bridge should be built slightly to the south of the one then in existence. This project required construction and elevation of the bridge approach and the abandonment of a portion of the old road where it crossed defendants’ property. In addition, to complete the project as planned, it became necessary for the county to condemn approximately one-half acre of defendants’ land, thus necessitating the institution of the present action in eminent domain. At the conclusion of the trial the jury awarded defendants $960 as the value of the land taken but failed to award severance damages. It is only the latter portion of the jury’s verdict which is challenged by defendants on this appeal.

Defendants’ primary contention, which to a degree is determinative of the other issues which they raise, is that they were entitled to severance damages as a matter of law. It is undisputed that the elevation of the new bridge approach is such that it is impossible for defendants to cross the road from the sawmill, planing mill and log pond which lie to the north, to their log and lumber storage area to the south without the use of ramps. In support of this contention defendants argue that the temporary ramps in existence at the time of trial were wholly inadequate to permit the passage of mill vehicles onto and over the road. From this they conclude that consequently the unitary operation of the two parcels has been destroyed, and since there is no other space north of the road for use as a storage area, their land can no longer ef[472]fectively be put to its highest and best use, that of a sawmill. Such argument fails to consider the evidence introduced by plaintiff which was directly contrary—that the ramps were adequate; that defendants’ right of cross-over was not seriously impaired by the elevation of the approach; and that defendants’ remaining land had not diminished in value by reason of the plaintiff’s taking of the one-half acre strip. Furthermore, it should be noted that in addition to hearing such evidence, the jury also viewed the premises.

It is further contended by defendants that the trial court erred in permitting the introduction of evidence of assumed or speculative benefits to defendants which tended to nullify their evidence of a right to severance damages. In particular they argue that it was improper for the court to allow the jury to offset the conjectural benefits received by defendants (1) by reason of the abandonment of part of the old road; and (2) by reason of the county’s promise to build ramps to the road less steep than those then in existence and in accordance with defendants’ wishes.