We have recently considered a problem similar to the one presented in this case. In Horky v. Kentucky Utilities Co., Ky., 336 S.W.2d 588, the landowner proposed to erect a building for commercial purposes almost directly under the plaintiff's electric transmission lines. The clearance was reduced to approximately 14 feet.

The same holds true when a property owner or neighbor interferes with another's lawful use of an easement. See, e.g., Horky v. Kentucky Utilities Co., 336 S.W.2d 588, 589 (Ky. 1960); Studer v. Jackson, No. 2009-CA-267, 2010 WL 1628213, at *1 (Ky. App. Apr. 23, 2010).

Sandman v. Highland, 312 Ky. 128, 132, 226 S.W.2d 766, 768 (1950); although the easement must impose the least possible burden, the servient holder "has no right to use the land subject to the easement in such a manner as to interfere with the reasonable and prudent exercise and enjoyment of the easement by its owner." Horky v. Kentucky Utilities Company, Ky., 336 S.W.2d 588, 589 (1960). This court is of the opinion that the road construction and concomitant necessity of encasing the pipeline constituted an unreasonable interference with the dominant estate.

The use of an easement must be reasonable and as little burdensome to the landowner as the nature and purpose of the easement will permit. Horky v. Kentucky Utilities Co., Ky., 336 S.W.2d 588 (1960). Cf. Farmer v. Kentucky Utilities Co., Ky., 642 S.W.2d 579 (1982).

The use of the easement must be as reasonable and as little burdensome to the landowner as the nature and purpose of the easement will permit. Horky v. Kentucky Utilities Company, Ky., 336 S.W.2d 588 (1960). In Higdon v. Kentucky Gas Transmission Corporation, Ky., 448 S.W.2d 655 (1970), this court was constrained to the view that dominant and servient owners have correlative rights and duties which neither may unreasonably exercise to the injury of the other.

See, e.g., Nantahala Power and Light Co. v. Carringer, 220 N.C. 57, 16 S.E.2d 453 (1941); Georgia Utilities Co. v. Ward, 37 Ga. App. 45, 138 S.E. 588 (1927).See, e.g., Horky v. Kentucky Utilities Co., 336 S.W.2d 588 (Ky. 1960); In re Omaha Public Power Dist., 168 Neb. 120, 95 N.W.2d 209 (1959); Los Angeles v. Igna, 208 Cal.App.2d 338, 25 Cal.Rptr. 247 (1962); Alabama Power Co. v. Berry, 222 Ala. 20, 130 So. 541 (1930); Aycock v. Houston Lighting Power Co., 175 S.W.2d 710 (Tex.Civ.App. 1943); Shedd, n. 8, supra. In Texas Public Utilities Co. v. Bass, 297 S.W. 301 (Tex.Civ.App. 1927), it was held that the grantor-owner had the right to use the land in any manner which did not interfere with the power company's operation of its equipment.

The court cited Collins v. Alabama Power Co., 214 Ala. 643, 108 So. 868, 46 A.L.R. 1459, in which the court said: "We think there can be no doubt that the dwelling house, resting in part upon complainant's right of way, is an obstruction such as complainant sought to guard against when it took a grant of its right of way from Evans." See also Kesterson v. California-Oregon Power Co., 114 Or. 22, 228 P. 1092; Willingham v. Georgia Power Co., 193 Ga. 801, 20 S.E.2d 83, (both of which concerned high piles of lumber) and Pacific Gas Electric Co. v. Minnette, 115 Cal.App.2d 698, 252 P.2d 642; and Horky v. Kentucky Utilities Co., Ky., 336 S.W.2d 588; Louisiana Power Light Co. v. Bennett, La.App., 107 So.2d 468; (in all of which there were mandatory injunctions for removal of buildings); see also Kansas City Power Light Co. v. Riss, Mo.App., 319 S.W.2d 262; 29 C.J.S. Electricity § 16, p. 527. Our view is that the trial court correctly ruled in its conclusions of law that this house, "located directly beneath all of the conductors of the line * * * is an obstruction and an impediment to access to the space below the line for inspection of the conductors and for the movement of men, equipment and materials beneath the line in a straight line between the steel towers in making any required repairs on the conductors"; that "the presence of the house also adds the possibility of damage to the conductors by a fire occurring in the house, which of course would be a threat to the uninterrupted operation of the line"; that "the erection of the house by the defendants was and is a substantial encroachment upon the paramount easement rights

Horky v. Kentucky Utilities Co., 336 S.W.2d 588, 589 (Ky. 1960) (citations omitted); see also Central Ky. Nat. Gas Co. v.

The grant of an easement over the Dawson property must be as reasonable and as little burdensome to the landowner as the nature and purpose of the easement will permit. Horky v. Kentucky Utilities Co., 336 S.W.2d 588, 589 (Ky. 1960). While the language is not restrictive, Kentucky law limits its application only to the property Scott owned at the time of the execution of the 1913 indenture.

The use of an easement must be reasonable and as little burdensome to the landowner as the nature and purpose of the easement will permit. Horky v. Kentucky Utilities Co., Ky., 336 S.W.2d 588 (1960). Cf. Farmer v. Kentucky Utilities Co., Ky., 642 S.W.2d 579 (1982).