WPI 151.04 Circuity of Travel to and From Property

Use this instruction when a street or highway project necessitates the following of a more circuitous route in getting to or leaving the owner's remaining property.

Do not use this instruction when the issue is access from or to an existing abutting roadway. See WPI 151.01 (Access, Light, View, and Air—Abutting Roadway).

In Walker v. State, 48 Wn.2d 587, 591, 295 P.2d 328 (1956), the court held that “[c]ircuity of route, resulting from an exercise of the public power, is an incidental result of a lawful act. It is not the taking or damaging of a property right.” Recovery for circuity of route is likewise precluded under RCW 47.52.041 with regard to limited access facilities. See also State v. Fox, 53 Wn.2d 216, 220, 332 P.2d 943 (1958) (circuity of route required by a median strip falls within the police power of the state).

Nevertheless, cases have held that damages for circuity of route may be recoverable when the disruption is particularly severe. In Union Elevator & Warehouse Co. v. State ex rel. Dept. of Transp., 96 Wn.App. 288, 296, 980 P.2d 779 (1999), the court held that a property owner may recover for circuity of travel when the owner's right of access is either eliminated or substantially impaired. Mere inconvenience of travel does not constitute substantial impairment of access. Union Elevator & Warehouse Co. v. State ex rel. Dept. of Transp., 96 Wn.App. at 296. The issue of remaining access is to be determined on the basis of “reasonableness, adequacy and commercial practicability.” Union Elevator & Warehouse Co. v. State ex rel. Dept. of Transp., 96 Wn.App. at 297–98.

In State v. Calkins, 50 Wn.2d 716, 314 P.2d 449 (1957), damages from circuity of travel were allowed when they resulted from dividing a parcel into two parts by a limited access highway. See also State v. Kodama, 4 Wn.App. 676, 483 P.2d 857 (1971) (owners of nonabutting property were entitled to recover for resulting circuity of travel when limited access highway cut across easement road running between their property and public thoroughfare).

For a related discussion, see the Comment to WPI 151.03 (Access—Diversion of Traffic).