Ford v. Santa Cruz Railroad

Public Nuisance—Special Damages—Measure of Damages—Railroad —Street.—In an action to recover damages caused by the construction of defendants’ road-bed in the street in front of the plaintiff’s lot, it appeared that the track of the defendant was laid through the street by the consent and permission of the town authorities, but that in front of the plaintiff’s lot it was elevated considerably above the street, and ingress and egress to the plaintiff’s lot was much impeded thereby. Held, that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the damages sustained by him prior to the commencement of the suit.

Appeal from a judgment for the plaintiff in the Twentieth District Court, County of Santa Cruz. Belden, J. The Court found, among other things, as follows: By authority of the Legislature of California, and by the consent and .permission of the Board of Supervisors of Santa Cruz County, and of the town authorities of the town of Watsonville, said defendant in the month of April, 1876, laid the track of its road through said Walker street to the “Pajaro River.” When said road was first laid it was not graded, but was laid upon the natural level and grade of said street. In the month of November, 1876, the defendant constructed a permanent bridge for its road across the “Pajaro River;” said bridge was placed as low as its security from floods would permit. After the completion of said bridge the road through Walker street was graded and so raised as to connect with said bridge, and has since been so kept and maintained. The grade so changed and raised, has caused an embankment of earth through the whole length of “Walker street” above the former level of the street, and of height varying from a few inches to four feet at the several points upon said “street.” Over said road so raised and graded the defendant, from that date to the present time, has daily passed two or more trains of cars. Ingress and egress to this lot is much impeded by this embankment. I find that the value of the use of this Rudolph lot has been diminished five dollars per month by the construction and maintenance of this embankment, to wit, from the month of November, 1876, to the date of the filing of this complaint. A petition for hearing in Bank was filed in this case after judgment, and denied.