A conflict arose between neighbors over the use of a road that runs between the two adjacent land parcels. The road predominantly runs through the land parcel of one neighbor but is also used by the other neighbor who moved the Court to maintain the existing situation whereby the road serves both parcels and is the only entrance to the rear of his parcel.
The court held that the period of time which continues use forming an Easements by prescription is thirty consecutive year. The continuity required is for the period of use rather than use itself. The path of the plaintiff claiming the existence of an easement has two obstacles. First, that a condition for the easement is the existence of "counter use" which contradicts claims that the alleged use was consensual. The second condition relates to the land being a public land which in this case allegedly a right of an easement cannot be formed.
In the present case, it was proven that the route has not changed since 1958 to the present. Furthermore, it was proven that the route was used continuously for over a half-century and without protest. Under these circumstances it was held that the use of this route has become into a right of an easement which entitles for legal protection.