Section 6 Torts Distinguished

• Library: Condemnation Practice 2009

Counsel should be aware of a distinction among the types of acts that may give rise to a claim. When a taking entity deliberately acts for the purpose of furthering a public object in the project as a whole, the landowner would be entitled to compensation if the landowner’s property were damaged. This is true even though the state fails to appreciate the probabilities that damage could result from that particular public project. Heins Implement Co. v. Mo. Highway & Transp. Comm’n, 859 S.W.2d 681 (Mo. banc 1993).

If the property was subject to a direct condemnation in conjunction with the project and if the damage was a reasonably foreseeable outcome of the project, an inverse action will not lie. Heins,859 S.W.2d 681; Owen v. City of Springfield, 741 S.W.2d 16
(Mo. banc 1987). Here “reasonably foreseeable” would be a jury question relying heavily on the facts and, in...