Ark. Code Ann. § 18-15-1204 (2026)

Case Notes

Constitutionality.

This section, when read in conjunction with §§ 18-15-1206 and 18-15-1207, fully satisfies both substantive and procedural due process standards of United States Constitution. DeSalvo v. Ark. La. Gas Co., 239 F. Supp. 312 (E.D. Ark. 1965).

Land Not Taken.

Owner of premises abutting on a street in a city or town may recover from railway company the damages resulting to his premises by the construction of its roadbed or other structures on its right-of-way along the street, in such a manner as to obstruct access to his premises. Hot Springs R.R. v. Williamson, 136 U.S. 121, 10 S. Ct. 955, 34 L. Ed. 355 (1890).

Where a landowner whose land is not being taken has suffered a reduction in the market value of his property by the destruction of a street abutting his property, he is entitled to compensation. Arkansas State Hwy. Comm'n v. Kesner, 239 Ark. 270, 388 S.W.2d 905 (1965).

A landowner whose land is not being taken is not entitled to compensation for damage of the same kind as that suffered by the public in general, even though the inconvenience and injury to the particular landowner may be greater in degree than that to others. Ark. State Hwy. Comm'n v. McNeill, 238 Ark. 244, 381 S.W.2d 425 (1964); Arkansas State Hwy. Comm'n v. Kesner, 239 Ark. 270, 388 S.W.2d 905 (1965).

Measure.

The inconveniences and disadvantages from the sounding of whistles, the ringing of bells and the rattling of trains, the exposure of the premises to fire, the increased danger of injury to members of the family and livestock are not speculative, but are real and properly included in the measure of damages. Little Rock, Miss. R. & Tex. Ry. v. Allen, 41 Ark. 431 (1883).

The manner in which the railroad passing through land cuts it up, the amount and location of the land taken, the inconvenience to the owner in passing from one part of land to another, the absence of proper crossings, and overflowing caused by the road are all proper elements of damages for taking the right-of-way. Springfield & Memphis Ry. v. Rhea, 44 Ark. 258 (1884).

The additional fencing rendered necessary by the building of the road is an element of damages, but there is no statute or common-law principle which obliges a railroad corporation to fence its tracks or provide cattle guards where the line traverses improved lands. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & S. Ry. v. Walbrink, 47 Ark. 330, 1 S.W. 545 (1886).

Danger to livestock and the frightening of teams employed in the use of land are elements of damages. Fayetteville & Little Rock Ry. v. Combs, 51 Ark. 324, 11 S.W. 418 (1888).

The value of a track previously placed upon a tract of land without the owner's permission could not be included in the valuation of the property for compensation purposes. Newgass v. St. Louis, Ark. & Tex. Ry., 54 Ark. 140, 15 S.W. 188 (1891).

The owner's damages for the right-of-way to a railroad over his land cannot be diminished by the estimated benefit likely to accrue to his remaining property. St. Louis, Ark. & Tex. R.R. v. Anderson, 39 Ark. 167 (1882); Memphis & Little Rock R.R. v. Organ, 67 Ark. 84, 55 S.W. 952 (1899); Brown v. Wyandotte & Se. Ry., 68 Ark. 134, 56 S.W. 862 (1900); Little Rock & Fort Smith Ry. v. Allister, 68 Ark. 600, 60 S.W. 953 (1901).

Although several lots of land sought to be condemned for railroad purposes are separated by an alley, they may be treated as parts of a single tract for the purpose of determining the damages if the testimony shows that they are to be used as a unit. Kansas City S. Ry. v. Boles, 88 Ark. 533, 115 S.W. 375 (1908).

Where a railroad has been completed through the plaintiff's land before an action is brought to recover damages for land appropriated for the right-of-way, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the damages to his land, if any, caused by closing the natural outlet for water at the high water season. Missouri & N. Ark. R.R. v. Bratton, 92 Ark. 563, 124 S.W. 231 (1909).

The measure of the damages is the market value of the land actually taken and the depreciation of the remaining portion without deducting the benefits that may accrue to the land by reason of the construction of the railroad. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & S. Ry. v. Theodore Maxfield Co., 94 Ark. 135, 126 S.W. 83 (1910).

Pleadings.

It is not necessary for the owner to answer claiming damages to the residue of a tract of land as when a company inaugurates the statutory proceedings, it is presumed that it will perform its whole duty. Fayetteville & Little Rock Ry. v. Hunt, 51 Ark. 330, 11 S.W. 418 (1888).

In an action to recover damages for the taking of a right-of-way, the jury may include damages to the plaintiff's land caused by a pond made thereon in the construction of the road, although the complaint alleged no special damages on that score. Arkansas Cent. R.R. v. Smith, 71 Ark. 189, 71 S.W. 947 (1903).

Proof.

Witnesses who have personal knowledge of the character and location of the land, and of the facts in regard to building the railroad over it, may give their opinions as to the amount of damages sustained. Texas & St. Louis Ry. v. Kirby, 44 Ark. 103 (1884).

Great latitude is allowed the trial court in admitting or rejecting evidence of damages. Springfield & Memphis Ry. v. Rhea, 44 Ark. 258 (1884).

Evidence to show that land condemned for a railroad bridge possesses superior advantages as a bridge site is admissible to show the market value. Little Rock Junction Ry. v. Woodruff, 49 Ark. 381, 5 S.W. 792 (1887).

Where the defendant in a condemnation suit has, pending the suit, sold the land which the railway company seeks to condemn, he will not be required to show that he received a lower price than he would have received if the railway had not been built. Little Rock & Fort Smith Ry. v. Allister, 68 Ark. 600, 60 S.W. 953 (1901).

Owner could offer evidence as to the “before and after” value of the land in condemnation proceeding and witness should be permitted to state factors on which his opinion was based. Feibelman v. Trunkline Gas Co., 234 Ark. 277, 351 S.W.2d 447 (1961).

Waiver.

When the owner conveys the right-of-way by agreement, he waives in advance all damages (except those arising from faulty construction), as it is presumed that the damages are included in the purchase price. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & S. Ry. v. Walbrink, 47 Ark. 330, 1 S.W. 545 (1886).

Cited: Property Owners Imp. Dist. No. 247 v. Williford, 40 Ark. App. 172, 843 S.W.2d 862 (1992).