State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Chesson

As organ for the court, the writer yields to the majority consensus that additional severance damages should be disallowed, since noncompensable as essentially resulting from the diversion of traffic.

However, it should be pointed out that this property owner suffers a sort of damage peculiarly different and substantially greater than other tracts affected by the taking: The taking cuts across the rear of his property and causes his service station and café to be adjacent to the new highway taken — but to be so situated that only the rear of these improvements faces the new highway. The…