No sleeping under the bridges of Paris!
In Ada County Highway District v. Brooke View, No. 43452 (May 23, 2017), the Idaho Supreme Court held that construction damage caused by the Highway District to property adjacent to -- but not part of -- a road project for which it took property, was not covered in the condemnation case as damage caused "by reason of ... the construction of the improvement." During construction of the highway widening project, the county damaged a wall belonging to the condemnee.
The court held that this type of damage was not part of the valuation case in eminent domain, but was covered by tort law. Thus, the property owner could not claim that the cost to repair the damage was part of just compensation and damage, but had to sue the county in a negligence action. The Idaho statute on which the property owner relied would seem to include construction damages as part of just compensation:
If the property sought to be condemned constitutes only a part of a larger parcel: (a) the damages which will accrue to the portion not sought to be condemned, by reason of its severance from the portion sought to be condemned, and the construction of the improvement in the manner proposed by the plaintiff...
Idaho Code § 7-711 (emphasis added).
The court concluded that the italicized text above didn't mean that a condemnor would be liable for the damages caused by the "method" of construction, but only in the "kind of improvement" to be built. Slip op. at 8. That's a pretty fine distinction, and one we're not really sure how to unwrap.
Ultimately, however, what seemed to convince the court was the nature of eminent domain actions as compared to tort claims for negligence. The point of eminent domain, according to the court, is valuation of the property on the date of the taking (in Idaho, the date of summons). Which means that injury to property incurred after the date of summons isn't included. "There are many occurrences during a construction project that could possibly injure the remaining property, depending upon the nature of the remaining property and other factors. When the summons was issued, one would not know whether the remaining property would be injured by something that may later occur during the construction process or the extent of such possible injury." Slip op. at 9.
The court held that if it were to allow the condemnee to recover post-summons damages to its property caused by the project, that would give property owners in eminent domain an unfair advantage over owners whose property was damaged by a project, but whose property wasn't subject to eminent domain. That a tort claim may be fruitless didn't much concern the court:
Brooke View next asserts that if just compensation does not include the damage to the Wall, it would be inequitably left without legal recourse because it would be unable to prevail under a tort theory. This Court takes no position as to whether Brooke View might be able to recover in a tort action. To make such a determination would be improper, especially considering that the district court specifically forbade the parties from presenting evidence that would be relevant in a negligence case. However, whether Brooke View could prevail under a tort theory does not dictate whether limiting Brooke View to tort theories is equitable or inequitable. To the contrary, our interpretation of Idaho Code section 7-711 leaves Brooke View in exactly the same position as any other party whose property is damaged during a road improvement project.
Slip op. at 14.
Yes, but it sounded better in the original French: "Ils y doivent travailler devant la majestueuse égalité des lois, qui interdit au riche comme au pauvre de coucher sous les ponts, de mendier dans les rues et de voler du pain" (the law, in its imperial majesty, prohibits the rich and the poor equally from sleeping under bridges, begging in the streets, and stealing bread). Property owners who had their land seized and damaged should be in no better position that the other poor saps whose property was merely damaged: "The fact that neighbor A had a small part of property taken should not separate her from neighbor B when it comes to bringing claims for the same damage caused the same way." Id.
Ada County Highway District v. Brooke View, Inc., No. 43452 (Idaho May 23, 2017)