Hales v. City of Kansas City

Citations: 804 P.2d 347; 248 Kan. 181; 15 A.L.R. 5th 1111; 1991 Kan. LEXIS 17Docket: 65031

Court: Supreme Court of Kansas; January 18, 1991; Kansas; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Michael S. Hales and Marlene S. Hales appealed a summary judgment favoring The City of Kansas City, Kansas, regarding the limitation of access to their property, Cambridge West Apartments. The trial court ruled that this limitation was an exercise of police power, requiring no compensation. The City had installed a raised median on Rainbow Boulevard, preventing northbound traffic from making left turns into the south parking lot and prohibiting southbound turns from that lot. The median was part of a road improvement that included relocating the boulevard and installing new curbing and a traffic signal. The property, consisting of 48 units divided into two buildings with separate parking lots, previously allowed unrestricted traffic flow. The landowners contended that The City had effectively acquired access rights through eminent domain, as opposed to exercising police powers, referencing a prior case (Smith v. State Highway Commission) where the State explicitly sought such rights. However, the court noted that The City did not seek to acquire access rights in its petition or the appraisers' report.

The City has asserted its authority to limit access to property under its police power rather than through eminent domain, a position upheld by the trial court. The case references Hudson v. City of Shawnee, which allows cities to assert the reasonableness of police power regulations at any time during condemnation actions. The current matter does not involve denial of access from a condemnation action; rather, the City has restricted public left turns near the landowners' south parking lot to enhance traffic safety and capacity on Rainbow Boulevard. The parties agreed that this improvement aims to manage existing and future traffic volumes by installing a raised median that limits traffic entry and exit points, thereby facilitating safer traffic flow.

Legal precedents indicate that the exercise of police power for traffic control does not warrant compensation, even if it affects property access. Various cases affirm that installing median strips and regulating traffic are not compensable takings under eminent domain law. The courts have consistently recognized that regulating highway traffic falls within police power, allowing for restrictions such as prohibiting left turns and instituting one-way traffic without liability for compensation. While prior cases noted that such restrictions could affect property access, the courts maintain that as long as the restrictions are reasonable, they will not intervene. This stance has been affirmed in subsequent rulings, establishing a clear distinction between police power regulations and compensable takings.

The trial court instructed the jury that the landowner is not entitled to compensation for damages related to traffic regulation measures, such as prohibiting crossover between traffic lanes or constructing median dividers. The appellant requested the court to clarify that damages resulting from other traffic regulations, including prohibiting left turns and installing traffic signals, were also non-compensable if they served to regulate traffic. However, the court found that this instruction was not applicable to the evidence presented at trial. There was no competent testimony indicating that the closure of the west access entrance on Highway 50 was a traffic regulation measure. While the city has the authority to regulate traffic, no evidence was provided regarding the reasonableness of such regulations. Testimony only mentioned median strips, which the court ruled did not affect market value for compensation purposes. Therefore, limiting the landowner's access to southbound lanes when direct access to both lanes was previously available was deemed a valid exercise of police power and not subject to compensation. The trial court's refusal to give the requested instruction was upheld, and the ruling was affirmed.