Brief Fact Summary. Sakansky (Plaintiff) took title in land, which included an eighteen feet wide right of way across the Defendants’ land. The Defendants wanted to build a building on their land over the right of way or, in the alternative, allow Plaintiff a new right of way around the building.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. The rule of reasonableness dictates that there is, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, no way for the court to change the boundaries of a pre-existing right of way to limit the headroom of the right of way to eight feet.
The rule: provides that the rights of the parties to a right-of-way are questions of fact that must be determined in light of the surrounding circumstances, including the location and uses of both parties property, and by taking into consideration the advantage of one owner's use and the disadvantage to the other owner caused by that use.View Full Point of Law
Issue. May the Defendants build over the right of way by limiting the height of the right of way to eight feet?
Held. No. The Plaintiff has a right to the old right of way and more headroom than eight feet, thus, the Defendants may not build thereon.
The rule of reason is a rule of interpretation. The court found that the old right of way was established so that Plaintiff may have access to the rear of his premises. The court found that the master’s decision implies that it is not unreasonable for the Plaintiff to use vehicles over eight feet high to gain such access to the rear of his building. The rule of reason refuses to give unreasonable rights or impose unreasonable burdens on parties.
In this case, the parties are bound by a contract, which gave the owner of the dominant estate (Plaintiff) a right of way across the servient estate (Defendants) for the purpose of access to the rear of Plaintiff’s premises, which described a definite location. The Plaintiff has no right to ask the Defendants to allow him the use of another section of ground, and the Defendants likewise cannot compel Plaintiff to use another section.
The Plaintiff does have the right to use the existing right of way to a height of over eight feet, but how much higher is a question not presented. Clearly, the Plaintiff cannot claim to own the air above the right of way to the sky, but it is unreasonable to limit the height to eight feet.
The court found that what is or is not reasonable is not a concept that becomes set at any particular moment of time. In the absence of a contract on the subject, the owner of the dominant estate is not limited to such vehicles as were in existence at the time the right of way was created.
Discussion. Plaintiff attempted to prevent the Defendants from building over the right of way, even when the Defendants had offered a new right of way. In a case, when the Plaintiff is an easement holder, the result of the case is likely to be that the easement will remain unchanged. Otherwise, the property of the servient estate would be subject to variable easements.