United States v. 10.0 Acres, Etc., and 33.4 Acres, Etc., Gesford P. Wright and Marie R. Wright

This is an appeal from a directed verdict denying compensation for appellants’ interest in a private road condemned and opened *1093 to the public by the United States Forest Service.

Gesford P. Wright and Marie R. Wright contend that the district court erroneously denied them the opportunity to present evidence of compensable loss.

The road in which the Wrights owned an interest was taken by the United States to provide public access to the Mendocino National Forest. Before the condemnation, the road served two tracts of land owned by appellants and an adjoining tract owned by a timber company (Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation). The road crossed five parcels of private property, a section owned by the United States (one mile), and then crossed Fibreboard land for another four miles.

Fibreboard, the Wrights, and one Whitely purchased exclusive easements (for themselves and their permittees) across the five privately owned parcels, and obtained a use permit to cross the federally owned lands. They then constructed a road which, with existing roads, created access to their properties. Locked gates were placed before the five private parcels, after the five parcels, at the…

(dissenting):

I respectfully dissent.

The majority opinion would create by judicial fiat a new right for landowners in condemnation cases. It is contrary to a line of cases holding that a landowner may recover damages for a taking but not for consequential damages. Campbell v. United States, 266 U.S. 368, 370-72 , 45 S.Ct. 115 , 69 L.Ed. 328 (1924). That case also held, in particular, that harm done by the Government’s use of lands once owned by third parties was mere consequential damages.

Campbell was essentially a severance case where the landowner recovered the value of the portion condemned and the diminution of the value of an adjoining parcel. But this was not the real issue litigated. The landowner was also seeking an enhanced value to the adjoining parcel because of the increased use of condemned land once owned by third parties.

Campbell cannot be read out of our case by saying that appellants herein were only seeking compensation for the taking of their own easement in the roadway. They were claiming that their non-adjoining land was now less valuable because their right to solitude and privacy in that land was decreased by the additional usage of third parties’…

533 F.2d 1092 36 A.L.R.Fed. 502 UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. 10.0 ACRES, etc., et al., and 33.4 Acres, etc., et al., Defendants, Gesford P. Wright and Marie R. Wright, Appellants. No. 74-1286. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Feb. 17, 1976. Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied June 7, 1976. Peter F. Windrem (argued), Santa Rosa, Cal., for appellants. Carl Strass, Atty. (argued), Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for appellee. Before BROWNING, CARTER and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges. GOODWIN, Circuit Judge: 1 This is an appeal from a directed verdict denying compensation for appellants' interest in a private road condemned and opened to the public by the United States Forest Service. 2 Gesford P. Wright and Marie R. Wright contend that the district court erroneously denied them the opportunity to present evidence of compensable loss. 3 The road in which the Wrights owned an interest was taken by the United States to provide public access to the Mendocino National Forest. Before the condemnation, the road served two tracts of land owned by appellants and an adjoining tract owned by a timber company (Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation). The road crossed five…