Yawn v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.
307 Ga. App. 849
Ga. Ct. App.2011Background
- Yawn owns 155-acre timberland in Dodge County with a private crossing over the Railway's main line for access.
- The crossing was historically used to access Yawn's land for timber harvests and hunting since the 1910s–1990s.
- On September 6, 2007, the Railway closed and removed the crossing after determining no formal easement existed and that the landowner had alternative access.
- Railway posted notice of closure and followed its standard safety closure procedures; no objections were raised by Yawn until November 5, 2007.
- Yawn claimed an easement by deed from 1988 and argued prescriptive rights, while the Railway contended there was no valid easement or prescriptive use.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the Railway; on appeal, the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Yawn has an express easement for the crossing. | Yawn relies on the 1988 Deed language reserving use of the crossing. | No conveyance or express easement actually existed for the crossing; the tract conveyed did not include the crossing. | No express easement found |
| Whether Yawn established a prescriptive easement. | Longstanding, continuous use of the crossing created a prescriptive right. | No notice element or uninterrupted, exclusive use meeting prescription criteria; use was permissive. | Prescriptive easement not established |
| Whether the Railway properly closed a private crossing under its safety procedures. | Removal harmed longstanding access and should be restored. | Crossing had no active use, no easement, and owner had alternate access; closure followed standard policy. | Railway's closure upheld; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Tompkins v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 213 Ga. 48 (1957) (railroad right-of-way is an exclusive property interest)
- Norton v. Holcomb, 285 Ga. App. 78 (2007) (notice and prescription standards for private ways; summary judgment guidance)
- Keng v. Franklin, 267 Ga. 472 (1997) (prescription requires notice; definition of private way)
- Eileen B. White & Assocs. v. Gunnells, 263 Ga. 360 (1993) (notice required for adverse use under claim of right)
- Douglas v. Knox, 232 Ga. App. 551 (1998) (permissive use undermines prescriptive rights when owner objected)
- Jackson v. Norfolk Southern R., 255 Ga. App. 695 (2002) (acquiescence in use is not enough for prescription)
- Macon-Bibb County Indus. Auth. v. Central of Ga. R. Co., 266 Ga. 281 (1996) (no express easement created when land conveyed excludes the crossing)
- Seignious v. MARTA, 252 Ga. 69 (1984) (no transfer of more rights than owner possesses)
- Duncan v. Sluder, 204 Ga. 458 (1948) (notice requirement for adverse use; prescription timelines)