Chevron Pipe Line Co. v. De Roest

The majority correctly recognizes that the rights of an easement holder and the owner of the servient tenement are relative and are circumscribed by the unambiguous language of the express grant. The majority also makes proper factual findings:

“[I]n the event of a leak in the pipe, the placement of fill has increased plaintiffs costs, access time, safety risks and liability exposure over what they were before the fill was added.” 122 Or App at 446-47.

Unfortunately, the majority misapplies those facts to the express terms of the grant and perpetuates the error that the trial court committed.…