California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Connolly v. McDermott, 162 Cal.App.3d 973, 208 Cal.Rptr. 796 (Cal. App. 1984):
Additionally, "The burden of proof is on the party asserting prescriptive rights. [Citations.] It is for the trier of fact to determine whether the elements of a claimed prescriptive easement have been established [citations] and all conflicts in the evidence must be resolved on appeal in favor of the party who prevailed at trial. [Citations.]" (Lynch v. Glass (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 943, 950, 119 Cal.Rptr. 139.)
Plaintiffs contend the trial court erred in restricting the scope of the easement to "livestock herding operations" by "men and horses"; they seek [162 Cal.App.3d 977] an easement permitting the use of motor vehicles. The apposite rule is codified in Civil Code section 806: "The extent of a servitude is determined by the terms of the grant, or the nature of the enjoyment by which it was acquired." It is settled law that "The scope of a prescriptive easement is determined by the use through which it is acquired. A person using the land of another for the prescriptive period may acquire the right to continue such use, but does not acquire the right to make other uses of it. [Citations.]" 2 (Hannah v. Pogue (1944) 23 Cal.2d 849, 854, 147 P.2d 572.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.