WPI 151.03 Access—Diversion of Traffic
6A WAPRAC WPI 151.03Washington Practice Series TMWashington Pattern Jury Instructions--Civil
6A Wash. Prac., Wash. Pattern Jury Instr. Civ. WPI 151.03 (7th ed.)
Washington Practice Series TM
Washington Pattern Jury Instructions--Civil
April 2022 Update
Part X-A. Eminent Domain
Chapter 151. Eminent Domain—Special Instructions
WPI 151.03 Access—Diversion of Traffic
An owner has no right in the continuation or maintenance of the flow of traffic past the property. You shall allow no compensation because traffic is diverted from the remaining property as a result of traffic control measures [, such as(insert measure that applies to the case),] installed as part of(name of agency's)project.
NOTE ON USE
Use this instruction when a street or highway project results in traffic being diverted from the owner's remaining property.
COMMENT
This instruction applies to the installation of traffic control measures, such as center median barriers and traffic signals, as well as changes in traffic patterns, such as one-way streets. In Walker v. State, 48 Wn.2d 587, 295 P.2d 328 (1956), construction of a median that prevented left-hand turns into the plaintiff's property was held to be a proper exercise of the police power that did not result in a compensable damage. The same result was reached in Kahin v. City of Seattle, 64 Wn.2d 872, 395 P.2d 79 (1964), with respect to traffic regulatory markers that converted a two-way street into a one-way street. See also State v. Fox, 53 Wn.2d 216, 220, 332 P.2d 943 (1958) (diversion of traffic because of a median strip falls within the police power of the state). However, in McMoran v. State, 55 Wn.2d 37, 345 P.2d 598 (1959), construction of a frontage road was held to result in compensable damage.
For a discussion of the related issue of circuity of travel, see the Comment to WPI 151.04 (Circuity of Travel to and from Property).
[Current as of October 2016.]
Westlaw. © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
| End of Document |