|
|
|
Title: HIGHEST COURTS OF PENNSYLVANIA AND NEW YORK DO NOT AGREE AS TO WHETHER OWNER OF FEE OF STREET IS ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION FOR INSTALLATION OF UTILITY FACILITIES BENEATH THE SURFACE OF A HIGHWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY
Accession Number: 00238589
Record Type: Component
Abstract: IN THE PENNSYLVANIA CASE, THE OWNERS HAD LAND ALONG A ROAD WITH AN ESTABLISHED PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY IN A TOWNSHIP WHICH BECAME A BOROUGH. THE EQUITABLE GAS COMPANY LAID A SUBSURFACE PIPELINE ALONG THE FRONTAGE OF THE PROPERTY FOR USE IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF NATURAL GAS TO THE PUBLIC. THE OWNER BROUGHT AN ACTION TO HAVE DAMAGES ASSESSED FOR AN APPROPRIATION OF A RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR THE PIPELINE. THE SUPREME COURT POINTED OUT THAT AN EARLIER LAW PROVIDED THAT AN EXISTING STREET OR PUBLIC ROAD LOCATED IN A CITY OR BOROUGH COULD BE USED FOR ANY PUBLIC SERVICE WITHOUT ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION DUE THE ABUTTING LANOWNERS. A DIFFERENT RULE HAD BEEN USED WITH TOWNSHIPS WHICH ENTITLED OWNERS TO COMPENSATION FOR THE USE OF ABUTTING LANDS SINCE THIS WAS CONSIDERED AN EXTRA BURDEN ON THE TOWNSHIP. THE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT THERE WAS NO REASON FOR DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN A TOWNSHIP, CITY OR BOROUGH'S EXTRA BURDEN BECAUSE THERE WAS NO NEED FOR THE DISTINCTION MADE BY THE EARLIER LAW. IN THE NEW YORK CASE, THE TOWN HAD ACQUIRED THE ROAD BY USER AND HAD GRANTED A UTILITY COMPANY THE RIGHT TO LAY ITS GAS MAIN UNDER THE ROAD. SOME OF THE PEOPLE WHO OWNED THE FEE TO THE CENTER OF THE STREET SUED TO COMPEL THE COMPANY TO REMOVE ITS MAIN. THE COMPANY REFUSED AND REQUESTED THAT THE OWNERS' DAMAGES, IF ANY, BE DETERMINED & THAT THEY BE REQUIRED TO CONVEY AN EASEMENT TO IT. THE COURT STATED THAT THE OWNER OF THE FEE OF LAND TO THE CENTER OF A STREET OR ROAD WAS ENTITLED TO BE COMPENSATED FOR USE OF THE EASEMENT FOR OTHER THAN HIGHWAY PURPOSES. ALSO, RIGHTS-OF- WAY COULD BE USED ONLY FOR HIGHWAY PURPOSES. THEREFORE, COMPENSATION DEPENDED ON THE INDIVIDUAL CASE AS TO WHETHER OWNERS COULD PROVE THAT THEY SUFFERED SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGES. (PITTSBURGH NATIONAL BANK V. EQUITABLE GAS CO., 220 A.2D 12, MAY 1966) (HE-YERT V. ORANGE & ROCKLAND UTIL., INC., 218 N.E.2D 263, JUNE 1966)
Supplemental Notes: No 59, pp 4-6. Distribution, posting, or copying of this PDF is strictly prohibited without written permission of the Transportation Research Board of the National Academy of Sciences. Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences. Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Publication Date: 1966-11
Serial: Media Type: Digital/other
TRT Terms: Uncontrolled Terms: Old TRIS Terms: Subject Areas: Highways; Law
Files: TRIS, TRB
Created Date: Feb 10 1994 12:00AM
More Articles from this Serial Issue:
|
