Opinion
NO. 2013-CA-000656-MR
06-06-2014
SANDI GANN APPELLANT v. SIMPSON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, A/K/A SIMPSON COUNTY SCHOOLS APPELLEE
BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT: Matthew J. Baker Bowling Green, Kentucky BRIEF FOR APPELLEE: Regina A. Jackson Bowling Green, Kentucky
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL FROM SIMPSON CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE G. SIDNOR BRODERSON, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 10-CI-00278
OPINION
AFFIRMING
BEFORE: DIXON, NICKELL AND TAYLOR, JUDGES. DIXON, JUDGE: Sandi Gann ("Gann") appeals from a judgment of the Simpson Circuit Court dismissing her claims against the Simpson County Board of Education ("the Board"). We affirm.
Gann owns a rental house that is located next door to Simpson County Elementary School, in Franklin, Kentucky. The front of the house faces South Court Street. The driveway is around the side of the house, accessible via an alley that intersects with South Court Street. The elementary school is across the alley from Gann's property. Between 2006 and 2012, the Board used the alley as the parent drop-off and pick-up line for approximately seventy-five students who did not ride the school bus. Gann complained to the Board that her driveway was blocked by the parents; thereafter, the Board installed a sign and painted lines on the pavement advising parents not to block Gann's driveway.
Enrollment at the elementary school is limited to preschool and kindergarten students.
In August 2010, Gann filed a complaint against the Board, alleging tortious interference, nuisance, and denial of reasonable access to her property. The Board filed an answer and moved to dismiss the complaint. The court held an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether the Board denied Gann reasonable access to her property. Testimony from the principal and teachers at the school indicated that the alley was used for drop-off and pick-up three times per day. Drop-off occurred from 7:30-8:00, preschool pick-up occurred from 11:30-12:00, and afternoon pick-up was 3:00-3:30. At least three staff members monitored the traffic line in the alley, utilizing walkie-talkies to communicate and stop the line of traffic when necessary. The testimony also indicated that the staff members stopped traffic if a tenant needed to exit the driveway. One of Gann's former tenants testified that she could not exit the driveway during drop-off and pick-up; however, she acknowledged the teachers on duty would stop the traffic for her to exit. She also indicated that the property was accessible from South Court Street, but it would require parking on the street.
The court granted the Board's motion to dismiss, noting the Board was entitled to governmental immunity on the tort claims. As to the claim of reasonable access, the court stated in relevant part:
The Court finds from the evidence presented at the hearing that, while the Board's use of the alley beside Gann's rental house may have been inconvenient at times for Gann or her tenants, they were never denied reasonable access to Gann's rental property. They had to wait no more than a few minutes to exit, and the Board's use of the alley was limited to those times of the school day when drop-off and pick-up of students was occurring. The Court determines as a matter of law that Gann and her tenants were not denied reasonable access to the subject property and Gann's 'taking' claim should be dismissed with prejudice.
Gann appeals the court's decision on the issue of whether the Board deprived her of reasonable access to her property by obstructing the alley.
An abutting landowner's interest in a public street is a right of reasonable access to the street system. Rieke v. City of Louisville, 827 S.W.2d 694, 696 (Ky. App. 1991). When a property owner contends her ingress and egress have been obstructed, the trial court must consider the facts and evidence to determine as a matter of law whether the owner has been denied reasonable access to her property. Commonwealth Dept. of Highways v. Adkins, 396 S.W.2d 768, 770 (Ky. 1965). "It is well-settled law in Kentucky that reasonable restriction of access, rerouting of public highways, and circuity of travel caused thereby are not legally compensable." Commonwealth Transp. Cabinet v. Comer, 824 S.W.2d 881, 883 (Ky. App. 1991).
Gann argues that, by using the alley for student drop-off and pick-up, the Board denied her reasonable access to her property by completely preventing ingress and egress. We disagree.
In the case at bar, the teachers testified that the alley was used for student drop-off and pick-up three times per day, for approximately thirty minutes each time. The testimony showed that the teachers monitored the traffic and accommodated the tenants by stopping traffic when necessary. The testimony also indicated that Gann and her tenants could access the property from South Court Street as an alternative to using the alley. After careful review, we are not persuaded that Gann was denied reasonable access to her property. As our Court has previously observed, "Neighborhoods, traffic patterns, safety requirements, and the like change over time, and governments must not always be required to compensate a property owner for every inconvenience or loss of business." Id. at 884. We agree with the trial court that the Board did not deny Gann reasonable access to her property as a matter of law; accordingly, the court properly dismissed Gann's claim.
For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the judgment of the Simpson Circuit Court.
ALL CONCUR. BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT: Matthew J. Baker
Bowling Green, Kentucky
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE: Regina A. Jackson
Bowling Green, Kentucky