delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is an inverse condemnation case.
Plаintiff in error, hereinafter referred to as the “Radinskys” own and operate a large warehouse, showrooms and storerooms аt 2000 West Colfax Avenue in the City and County of Denver where they sell hotel and institutional furnishings and equipment and provide design services to the publiс. They employ a substantial number of people and have a clientele that comes primarily from the downtown Denver arеa or from its motel areas. Their business is located just east of the South Platte River on the south side of what is referred to as “Old West Colfаx Avenue,” at its intersection with Zuni Street, and lies west of a complex interchange located on the Valley Highway; the latter being a freeway that *136 generally bisects Denver from North to 'South in the area in question.
The Radinskys allege that for many years past, the prinсipal and only practical access to their place of business from the east and downtown areas, has been ovеr West Colfax Avenue and through Larimer Street and the Larimer Street Viaduct Extension; further, that the principal and only practical аccess from the west has been via Federal Boulevard and West Colfax Avenue; and, that these highways had, prior to the constructiоn of the Freeway Interchange in question, existed and were dedicated to and used by the public since the year 1874 or even priоr thereto. They allege damages in the amount of $75,000 and also seek exemplary damages for an alleged wilful and wanton disregard of their rights.
Radinskys’ claim that the Freeway Interchange has affected and substantially destroyed both their ingress and egress. They assert that both customers and employees find it is now almost impossible to locate them, and that it is difficult to move their merchandise in and out of thеir place of business. It is contended that dis7 tances of driving in order to reach the plaintiffs’ premises have been increased viа one route from % of a mile to 1% miles, and by other routes from one block to 1% miles and by still another from 200 feet to 1% miles.
Though dedication and user of the former accеss routes to the subject property is admitted, defendants in error deny any damage. The City’s Answer also cross-claims against its co-defеndant, the Department of Highways for indemnification in the event the City suffers an adverse judgment. Answer to the Cross-claim asserts a contraсt with Denver that could give relief to the latter claim, however, we need not consider that phase of the case since wе concur with the trial court that no liability exists.
A trial was had to the court in limine on the question *137 of liability only, and it rendered judgment adverse to the Radinskys, finding and holding in pertinent part:
“* * * Access tо plaintiffs’ property from the south along Zuni Street or from the north has not been directly affected by the construction of which complaint is made.”
It is also correctly held that plaintiffs’ land does not abutt in direct fashion on the closed portions of West Colfax Avenue, nor upon the Larimer Street Extension from the viaduct. Further, it held that
“The removing of the ramp from the viaduct to the street level took away a means of reaching the viaduct level above the street, but it was across the street from plaintiffs’ lot line. * * *”
The court then stated:
“The facts here show that plaintiffs have not been denied all access to their property. Access can be gained from north, south, east and west. The construction has made it less convenient when approaching or leaving the property from certain dirеctions, and some circuity of route is required, but access and egress can be gained.”
The court also found that whatever injury the Radinskys suffered was not different in kind from that suffered by the general public.
There is extensive testimony which is embodied in a reporter’s transcript. Many exhibits were also presented, including full aerial photographs of the area, before and after change, and including the оriginal plats, as well as maps of the entire region, and of the Valley Highway system.
Though several grounds of error are asserted, they аll revolve around the constitutional issue as to whether the Radinskys’ private property has been taken for public use without compensation in violation of Article II, Section 15 of the Colorado Constitution. We shall consider the matter on that basis.
Generally, it can be stated that the owner of
*138
premises' аbutting on a highway has certain rights in' and to the use of the public way distinct from the public’s easement of passage. 25 Am. Jur.
Highways,
§ 152; 39 C.J.S.,
Highways,
§ 141. And, damages occasioned such an owner in front of his land is not one suffered by the public and generally is compensable.
Denver v. Bayer,
In the cаse at bar there has been a rather drastic change in the principal traffic pattern serving the Radinskys’ business location. The triаl court found, however, that the north-south access was not “directly affected” and that the change only resulted in less conveniеnt approaches from other directions. The record reflects that such was the evidence and we hold that the trial cоurt was therefore correct in applying the pertinent law to it. As to the Radinskys, they suffered no greater loss in kind than the general publiс, although they may have possibly suffered a greater degree of injury due to the particular type of business they are engaged in. Theirs was the classical case of damnum absque injuria. What McQuillin, supra, in § 30.194 said in speaking of land in a different block from a vacated street is pertinent even though thе cut-off here is quite *139 close to the Radinskys’ land; the issue being whether special damages accrue thereby, it was said there as fоllows:
“* * * ^nd jg so (as to the non-availability of special damages) notwithstanding the new route is less convenient or the diversion of travel depreciates the value of his property. The inconvenience to the lot owner in having to adopt a less direct route to reach certain points, it has frequently been said, is an injury of the same kind as that suffered by the general public.” (Part in parenthesis аdded.)
In the instant case inconvenience cannot be equated with either a special denial to the Radinskys not suffered by the public generally or to a taking of their property.
There being evidence to sustain the findings and judgment of the trial court, the judgment is affirmed.