Roanoke County Traffic Lawyer

December 19, 2015

Defending Roanoke County, Virginia Traffic Tickets

If you have been ticketed or arrested for Reckless Driving in Roanoke County, you need a good traffic lawyer. If you have received a ticket for a lesser traffic offense, retaining a Roanoke County traffic attorney can also be very helpful to you. Roanoke County can be one of the most reasonable jurisdictions in Virginia when dealing with Reckless Driving, Speeding, and other traffic violations.

Roanoke County Highways and Law Enforcement

Roanoke County is a large county located (map) along the Interstate 81 , Interstate 581, and Route 220.  Many travelers to Roanoke and Salem, and those passing through the Commonwealth of Virginia receive tickets in Roanoke County.  On I-81 in Roanoke County, Reckless Driving, Speeding, and other traffic tickets are primarily issued by the Virginia State Police. The Virginia State Police also patrol major highways in Roanoke County, such as Route 220. The Roanoke County Police Department also patrols Roanoke County highways, and is the primary law enforcement agency patrolling and issuing tickets along secondary highways and roadways in Roanoke County.

Roanoke County Traffic Courts

The Roanoke County Courthouse, Where Roanoke County Traffic Cases Are Heard
The Roanoke County Courthouse, Where Roanoke County Traffic Cases Are Heard

In Virginia, the vast majority of traffic cases are heard in General District Courts.  Roanoke County traffic tickets are tried in Roanoke County General District Court, located in the City of Salem, Virginia because Salem is the county seat for Roanoke County.  Roanoke County traffic lawyer Harry F. Bosen, Jr. has been effectively defending speeding tickets in Roanoke County General District Court since 1975.  Roanoke County General District Court is across the street from the law firm’s offices.

Mr. Bosen regularly practices traffic law before all of the sitting judges of Roanoke County General District Court, including the Honorable Jacqueline F. Ward Talevi, Presiding Judge, Chief Judge; the Honorable Vincent A. Lilley, Presiding Judge; the Honorable Francis W. Burkart III, and the Honorable J. Christopher Clemens.  Practicing before this Court on a daily basis, Roanoke County traffic attorneys Bosen and Pollard are very familiar with the sentiments of the judges on certain legal issues and understand how to effectively defend traffic tickets and other traffic offenses there.

Roanoke County Traffic Lawyer Harry F. Bosen, Jr.
Roanoke County Traffic Lawyer Harry F. Bosen, Jr.

Roanoke county traffic lawyer Harry F. Bosen, Jr. also defends traffic cases in Roanoke County Circuit Court, which is also across the street from the law firm’s offices.  A Roanoke County traffic case will not typically reach the Circuit Court level unless the case is appealed from Roanoke Count General District Court.  Mr. Bosen typically only handles such an appeal if the client retained another attorney for the original trial, represented themselves (pro se), or did not appear on their court date, and Mr. Bosen believes an appeal would be effective.

Although appealed traffic cases heard in Roanoke County Circuit Court are relatively rare, Roanoke County traffic lawyer Harry F. Bosen, Jr. also regularly practices before all of the sitting judges of Roanoke County Circuit Court, including the Honorable James R. Swanson, Presiding Judge, Chief Judge; the Honorable Charles N. Dorsey, Presiding Judge; the Honorable William D. Broadhurst; and the Honorable David B. Carson.  Roanoke County attorneys Bosen and Pollard typically practice before this Court on other types of cases, such as serious crimes, personal injury and civil litigation, and will and estate matters.  Practicing before this Court on other types of cases enables Mr. Bosen to also be familiar with the sentiments of the Circuit Court judges on certain legal issues and understand how to present a defense on a traffic case there.

In addition to being familiar with the General District and Circuit Court judges, Roanoke County traffic lawyer Harry F. Bosen, Jr. is familiar with the Commonwealth’s Attorneys who prosecute the traffic cases in Roanoke County.  During over 40 years of experience working with the Roanoke County Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office, Mr. Bosen has earned a reputation for being fair with law enforcement and honest with the court.  In many Roanoke County traffic cases, Mr. Bosen can work with the prosecutor assigned to the case and the Roanoke County Police Officer or Virginia State Trooper who issued the ticket to negotiate a favorable outcome before court.

Dedicated. Tenacious. Honest.
Free Consultation · Email or Call (540) 389-6940

Roanoke County traffic lawyer Harry F. Bosen, Jr. offers effective defense of serious traffic offenses and minor traffic infractions, including the following:

  • Consequences of Unpaid Traffic Fines,
  • Speeding (including School Zones and Work Zones),
  • Reckless Driving,
  • Reckless Driving By Speed,
  • Improper Lane Change,
  • Improper Passing,
  • Failure To Yield Right-Of-Way,
  • Failure To Yield To Law Enforcement and Public Safety Vehicles,
  • Failure To Obey a Highway Sign,
  • Failure To Obey a Traffic Control Device,
  • Failure To Stop Before Entering Highway From Private Road,
  • Driving Without a License,
  • Driving On a Suspended or Revoked License,
  • Driving Without Insurance,
  • Hit-and-Run,
  • Leaving the Scene of an Accident,
  • DUI (also known as Driving Under the Influence, DWI, and Driving While Intoxicated),
  • DUID (Driving Under the Influence of Drugs),
  • Disregarding Signal By Law Enforcement Officer To Stop,
  • Eluding Police,
  • Stopping the Vehicle of Another,
  • Blocking Egress/Ingress To Premises,
  • Vehicular Manslaughter, and
  • Vehicular Homicide.

Contact Our Roanoke County Traffic Lawyer Harry F. Bosen, Jr.

If you have received any kind of Reckless Driving, Speeding or other traffic ticket in Roanoke County, you need a Roanoke County traffic lawyer who knows what to do.  Talk to an experienced Roanoke County traffic attorney at the law offices of Harry F. Bosen, Jr., located across the street from the Roanoke County Courthouse. We will explain your options and what we can do to help you.  Contact us today for a free consultation.

Stadium Owner May Be Liable For Fight In Men’s Room

October 21, 2015

A man who was injured by a fellow hockey fan in a drunken fight in a rest room at a Boston Bruins game can sue the stadium owner and its security company, a judge recently ruled.

John Foley was apparently trying to defuse an argument between a friend of his and another man when the fan approached, screaming and swearing, and injured Foley.

Foley sued, claiming that if stadium security had been properly trained and staffed, it could have intervened in time to prevent his injuries. The stadium owner argued that this wasn’t true, and that it was impossible to fully guarantee everyone’s safety throughout the arena.

The judge observed that hockey is a violent sport with a history of attracting intoxicated fans, which means the stadium owner could have foreseen that there might be incidents like this one. The judge said it should be up to a jury to decide whether the stadium’s security measures were adequate under the circumstances.

In Roanoke County, Montgomery County, Blacksburg, Roanoke City, and the City of Salem, venue owners can also be liable for maintaining security.

Cruise Line Sued For Medical Negligence

September 21, 2015

A cruise line may be held responsible in a Roanoke City, City of Salem, Roanoke County, Botetourt County, or Montgomery County court if a passenger receives poor medical care onboard.  This comes from a ruling in a federal appeals court in Atlanta.

The case was brought by the family of Pasquale Vaglio, an elderly man who banged his head while on a Royal Caribbean ship docked in Bermuda.  The family claimed that the onboard medical staff refused to provide treatment until they obtained credit card information, and were so careless in the treatment they did provide that Pasquale died when his life could easily have been saved.

Back in 1988, another federal appeals court had ruled that a cruise line wasn’t legally responsible for the actions of a ship’s doctor or nurse. A passenger could still sue the individual medical provider, of course – but the doctor or nurse might be based in another country and be hard to track down, or might not have enough assets or insurance to provide full compensation.

But in Pasquale’s case, the court said the old rule needed to be changed because cruise lines have evolved tremendously since 1988.

Back then, many ships didn’t have any onboard doctors or medical facilities. Today, however, cruise ships are more like floating cities, and lines such as Royal Caribbean often boast of their state-of-the-art medical care. The court said it would be wrong to let cruise lines brag in this way and then take no responsibility when things go wrong.

Parents, Party Hosts and Others Might Be Responsible For Guests’ Drinking

August 21, 2015

If you or someone you know has been injured by a drunk driver in Roanoke City, Roanoke County, or Montgomery County, you might know that you may be able to sue the driver for damages. You might also know that if the driver had been drinking at a bar, and the bar kept serving the person even though it should have known he or she was drunk, the bar might be liable, too.

But what if the driver was drinking at a party, or in someone else’s home?

In some cases, a private person who carelessly provides alcohol to a driver who later injures someone can be held responsible for the harm.

This is important to know, because it might result in the injured person having an additional source of compensation if the driver’s auto insurance doesn’t fully cover the loss.

The most common situation is which a private person could be held responsible is if he or she gave alcohol to someone who was under the legal drinking age. Every state in the country makes it illegal to provide alcohol to minors, and most states also have laws that in some way make people financially responsible for the harm if they break this law.

For instance, if parents let young people drink in their home, the parents might be responsible if a minor gets drunk and later injures someone in a car crash. Some parents have the attitude that young people will drink anyway, and they would rather provide the alcohol themselves so the young people can drink in a controlled environment. But regardless of whether this is a wise attitude or not, it won’t necessarily prevent legal liability if the parents break the law and someone gets hurt.

There have been cases where parents have been held liable even though they didn’t serve the alcohol – and weren’t even at home – but they had alcohol on the premises and should have known that young people were likely to “party” with it while they were away.

Parents aren’t the only ones who can be sued. Other people who organize a party or act as a social host may be responsible for underage drinking. And in addition to drunk driving, parents and social hosts may be responsible for other types of harm that can result from being drunk, such as falls and other accidents.

Of course, if hosts make other types of intoxicants available to young people, that can also lead to liability. The growing prevalence of medical marijuana means that people who use it need to take care not to let minors have access to it.

And in some states, the law says that a social host may be responsible if an adult guest gets drunk and later injures someone. If the host controls the liquor supply and should realize that allowing the guest to continue drinking creates a danger to the community, the host may be legally responsible for the consequences of allowing the person to drink.

All these types of claims may be covered by the host’s homeowner’s insurance policy – so it may be possible for a victim to be fairly compensated without bringing a lawsuit that bankrupts the host.

If you or someone you know has been injured by a drunk driver or in another situation involving alcohol, it’s always good to talk to an attorney, because it’s not always clear who may be responsible until an attorney has investigated all the facts.

For instance, in one recent case a 20-year-old California girl threw a party at her parents’ vacation home while they were away. One of the guests got drunk, drove off, and struck another guest.

Under California law, businesses can be sued for selling alcohol to a drunk minor, but a minor can’t be sued for giving alcohol to another minor.

However, it turned out that the 20-year-old had asked a friend to stand by the gate and collect $3 to $5 from each guest to help pay for the booze. The California Supreme Court said that this turned the party into “a pop-up nightclub that required a cover charge for entry,” and thus the girl could be legally responsible as a careless seller of alcohol.

This case is significant because it’s very common for guests at informal college and high-school parties to be asked to pony up a few dollars each to help pay for drinks.

 

Landowner Responsible For Hazard On Someone Else’s Property

July 21, 2015

The Elephant Rock Beach Club is a private club in Massachusetts. It’s named after Elephant Rock, a natural formation about 250 feet offshore.

Many members swim out to the rock. One day a guest swam out to the rock, dove off it, and injured herself on a dangerous part of the rock that was submerged just under the water. She sued the club for not warning of the danger.

The club claimed that it couldn’t be held responsible for the accident because it didn’t own the rock. The rock was beyond its property line, in waters owned by the state.

But a federal court said that the club had effectively taken control of the rock, because it had established rules prohibiting small children from using it, and because lifeguards often whistled people away from it on days when there were difficult swimming conditions.

Although the rock wasn’t on the club’s property, the court said landowners sometimes have a legal duty to prevent people from being hurt on a neighboring property. For instance, it pointed to an earlier case where a city was sued for not putting up a fence between a city-owned playground and a railroad track.

Parents May Be Liable For Child’s Posts On Facebook

May 21, 2015

Parents may be held liable in a Roanoke County, Montgomery County, Botetourt County, Roanoke City, or City of Salem court for damages for things their children post on Facebook, stemming from a recent decision from the Georgia Court of Appeals.

Seventh-grader Dustin Ahearn created a fake Facebook page for a classmate, Alexandria Boston. The page used a “fat face” app to make the girl look obese, and included posts suggesting that she used drugs, was racist and promiscuous, and had mental health problems.

Alexandria’s parents complained to the school, which suspended Dustin for two days and told his parents. Dustin’s parents punished him, but they neglected to make him take down the site, which remained online for almost a year until Alexandria’s parents sued them.

The court said that Dustin’s parents couldn’t be held liable for the fact that Dustin created the site in the first place, because he did it without their knowledge. However, once they knew about the site, they may have had a legal duty to supervise Dustin’s Internet use, including making him take the site down, the court said.

Recreational-Use Immunity for Golf Injury

June 13, 2014

The purpose of recreational-use tort immunity statutes, which are common across the country, is to encourage private and public landowners to make their property available for public recreational use. To advance this public interest, these laws usually immunize the owners or occupants of real property from negligence liability toward people entering the land for recreation, often on the condition that the property is made available for use free of charge.

Typically the statutory immunity stops short of protecting defendants from liability for greater degrees of wrongdoing, such as acts or omissions that can be characterized as willful, malicious, or grossly negligent. Originally the perceived need for immunity arose because of the impracticability of keeping large tracts of mostly undeveloped land safe for public use, but the concept has evolved so that it need not necessarily involve vast expanses of wilderness.

The conditions for recreational-use immunity can vary somewhat with the wording of the states’ statutes, requiring case-by-case rulings depending on the facts before a court and the wording of each state’s law. In keeping with a commonly recognized rule of statutory construction, because recreational-use immunity statutes limit common-law liability that predates such laws, a court must strictly construe language in the statutes in order to avoid any overbroad statutory interpretation that would give unintended immunity and take away a right of action for injured persons.

When a golfer at a city-owned golf course slipped and fell on a walkway leading to a tee box, he claimed that the walkway was dangerously steep and narrow, causing his injuries. The city defended on the basis of a state recreational-use immunity law. Before an intermediate appellate court, the city prevailed on one issue, about the golf course’s coming within the statute, but the case was sent back to the trial court for resolution of a second issue, concerning the legal status of the injured golfer.

The golf course was sufficiently similar to “park” lands to be included in the definition of “premises” under the recreational-use immunity statute even though there is no express mention of golf courses by the legislature. The golf course fit within the common definition of a “park,” as it was a parcel of property kept for recreational use that was designed and maintained for the primary purpose of allowing users to engage in a recreational activity. Not only that, but the statute’s list of types of land uses constituting covered “premises” includes a catch-all reference to “any other similar lands.”

However, for the immunity to apply to the city, it was also necessary for the golfer to have been a “recreational user” under the law. This, in turn, meant that the golfer must have paid either no admission fee or no more than a “nominal fee,” to use the term from the statute. In this case, there was no question that a fee was paid to play golf, but since the lower court had not reached the question of whether that fee was “nominal,” it would have to decide that issue.

Generally a nominal fee is one charged only to offset the cost of providing the educational or recreational premises covered by the immunity statute. Some of the factors affecting this issue might include, for example, the amount of the fee, the extent to which it approximates the value of the service received in exchange for it, and the fees charged for similar recreational uses in the community.

In something of an ironic twist, if it were to be found that the golfer had paid no more than a “nominal fee,” then in exchange for that inexpensive round of golf, the golfer will have ultimately paid a higher “price” in the form of being precluded from recovering damages from the golf course owner for negligence.

Tax Free Gains from Home Sales

May 13, 2014

One of the most significant tax advantages to owning a home comes at the back end of ownership, when you decide to sell it for a profit. A homeowner can exclude up to $250,000 of such profit from the federal capital gains tax. For married couples filing a joint tax return, the exclusion jumps to $500,000.

This big tax break does come with some basic requirements. It applies to the sale only of a principal residence, not of a vacation home or investment property. With some limited exceptions for poor health, job changes, and unforeseen circumstances, the taxpayer must have owned and used the home as a primary residence for at least two of the five years preceding the sale of the home. (But the two years need not be an uninterrupted time span.)

If the history of the home includes some business use, the owner cannot exclude that part of the gain that is equal to the depreciation claimed while the house was used as rental property. This scenario could arise when the owner rents out the house for a period of time but then moves back in, sells it, and otherwise qualifies for the exclusion related to that sale.

There is another two-year rule that comes into play after a taxpayer claims the home-sale exclusion. There is no limit to the number of times that the exclusion can be claimed for multiple sales, but, as a rule, once the exclusion is claimed, the taxpayer must wait two years before claiming another such exclusion.

For a married couple to qualify for the exclusion, it is sufficient if either spouse meets the ownership requirement. However, both spouses must meet the use requirement. Neither spouse is rendered ineligible for the exclusion because he or she had already excluded the gain on a different primary residence during the two years preceding the date of the current sale.

Christiansburg Traffic Lawyer

April 22, 2014

Christiansburg Traffic Attorneys Defending Montgomery County Traffic Tickets

If you have been ticketed or arrested for Reckless Driving in Montgomery County, Virginia, you need a good traffic lawyer. If you have received a ticket for a lesser traffic offense, retaining a Christiansburg traffic attorney can also be very helpful to you. Montgomery County is a very fair jurisdiction in Virginia for adjudicating Reckless Driving, Speeding, and other traffic violations.

Montgomery County County Highways and Law Enforcement

Montgomery County is a large county located (map) along the Interstate 81 and Route 460 corridors, located in the New River Valley, southwest of Roanoke.  Many travelers to Christiansburg and Blacksburg, as well as travelers passing through the New River Valley in Southwestern Virginia receive tickets in Montgomery County.  On I-81 in Montgomery County, Reckless Driving, Speeding, and other traffic tickets are primarily issued by the Virginia State Police, although the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Department also patrols I-81.  The Virginia State Police also patrol major highways in Montgomery County, such as Route 460.  The Montgomery County Sheriff’s Department also patrols Montgomery County highways.  The Christiansburg Police Department patrols roadways in the Town of Christiansburg, the Blacksburg Police Department in the Town of Blacksburg, the Virginia Tech Police Department on the Virginia Tech campus, and the Radford University Police Department on the Radford University campus.

Montgomery County Traffic Courts

Montgomery County Courthouse, Christiansburg, Virginia
Montgomery County Courthouse, Christiansburg, Virginia

In Virginia, the vast majority of traffic cases are heard in General District Courts. Montgomery County traffic tickets are tried in Montgomery County General District Court, located in Christiansburg, Virginia. Christiansburg traffic lawyer Harry F. Bosen, Jr. has been effectively defending speeding tickets in Montgomery County General District Court since 1975.

Christiansburg traffic attorney Bosen regularly practices traffic law before all of the sitting judges of Montgomery County General District Court, including the Honorable Gino W. Williams, Presiding Judge, Chief Judge; Honorable Randal J. Duncan, Presiding Judge; Honorable J. D. Bolt; and Honorable Erin J. DeHart. Practicing before this Court on a frequent basis, Mr. Bosen is very familiar with the sentiments of the judges on certain legal issues and understand how to effectively defend traffic tickets and other traffic offenses there.

Christiansburg traffic lawyer Harry F. Bosen, Jr. also defends traffic cases in Montgomery County Circuit Court. A Montgomery County traffic case will not typically reach the Circuit Court level unless the case is appealed from Montgomery County General District Court.  Attorney Bosen typically only handles such an appeal if the client retained another attorney for the original trial, represented themselves (pro se), or did not appear on their court date, and Mr. Bosen believes an appeal would be effective.

Christiansburg Traffic Lawyer
Christiansburg Traffic Lawyer Harry F. Bosen, Jr.

Although appealed traffic cases heard in Montgomery County Circuit Court are relatively rare, Christiansburg traffic lawyer Harry F. Bosen, Jr. also practices before all of the sitting judges of Montgomery County Circuit Court, including the Honorable Robert M. D. Turk, Presiding Judge; Honorable Josiah T. Showalter, Jr., Chief Judge; Honorable Bradley W. Finch; Honorable Brett L. Geisler; Honorable H. Lee Harrell; and Honorable Marcus H. Long, Jr.  Attorney Bosen typically practices before this Court on other types of cases, such as serious crimes, personal injury and civil litigation.  Practicing before this Court on other types of cases enables Mr. Bosen to also be familiar with the sentiments of the Circuit Court judges on certain legal issues and understand how to present a defense on a traffic case there.

In addition to being familiar with the General District and Circuit Court judges, Christiansburg traffic lawyer Harry F. Bosen, Jr. knows the Commonwealth’s Attorneys who prosecute the traffic cases in Roanoke County. After over 40 years of experience working with the Montgomery County Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office, Mr. Bosen has earned a reputation for being fair with law enforcement and honest with the court. In many Montgomery County traffic cases, he can work with the prosecutor assigned to the case and the law enforcement officer who issued the ticket to negotiate a favorable outcome before court.

Dedicated. Tenacious. Honest.
Free Consultation · Email or Call (540) 389-6940

Christiansburg traffic lawyer Harry F. Bosen, Jr. offers effective defense of serious traffic offenses and minor traffic infractions in Montgomery County General District and Circuit Courts, including the following:

  • Consequences of Unpaid Traffic Fines,
  • Speeding (including School Zones and Work Zones),
  • Reckless Driving,
  • Reckless Driving By Speed,
  • Improper Lane Change,
  • Improper Passing,
  • Failure To Yield Right-Of-Way,
  • Failure To Yield To Law Enforcement and Public Safety Vehicles,
  • Failure To Obey a Highway Sign,
  • Failure To Obey a Traffic Control Device,
  • Failure To Stop Before Entering Highway From Private Road,
  • Driving Without a License,
  • Driving On a Suspended or Revoked License,
  • Driving Without Insurance,
  • Hit-and-Run,
  • Leaving the Scene of an Accident,
  • DUI (also known as Driving Under the Influence, DWI, and Driving While Intoxicated),
  • DUID (Driving Under the Influence of Drugs),
  • Disregarding Signal By Law Enforcement Officer To Stop,
  • Eluding Police,
  • Stopping the Vehicle of Another,
  • Blocking Egress/Ingress To Premises,
  • Vehicular Manslaughter, and
  • Vehicular Homicide.

Contact Christiansburg Traffic Lawyer Harry F. Bosen, Jr.

If you have received any kind of Reckless Driving, Speeding or other traffic ticket in Montgomery County, you need a Christiansburg traffic lawyer who knows what to do. Talk to an experienced attorney at the Law Offices of Harry F. Bosen, Jr. located just 25 minutes from the Montgomery County Courthouse.  We will explain your options and what we can do to help you.  Contact us today for a free consultation.

Public Use Required for Eminent Domain

April 13, 2014

“Eminent domain” is the power of the federal, state, or local governments (and, in some limited circumstances, private parties, such as utilities and railroads) to take, or to authorize the taking of, private property for a public use without the owner’s consent and upon payment of just compensation. That right to compensation is rooted in the federal and state Constitutions. While the delegation of the power of eminent domain is for legislatures, the determination of whether the condemnor’s intended use of the land is for “the public use or benefit” is a question of law for the courts.

The public use or public benefit issue has spawned countless legislative and judicial reactions, especially since a controversial U.S. Supreme Court decision on the topic in 2005. In that case, owners of condemned property challenged a city’s exercise of eminent domain power on the ground that the takings were not for a public use but, rather, for the benefit of private developers.

The Court held that the city’s exercise of eminent domain power in furtherance of an economic development plan satisfied the constitutional “public use” requirement even though the city was planning to lease the condemned land to private developers for execution of the city’s plan. The plan nonetheless served a public purpose, in the form of enhanced economic development, including such beneficial effects as the increased tax revenues and new jobs expected to come with such redevelopment.

Recently a city withstood a similar challenge to its use of eminent domain to acquire an easement on a private landowner’s property in order to expand a sewer system by connecting city-owned property to a sewer pump station underneath the landowner’s property. The taking was for a public use even though the city ultimately planned to sell its property to a private affordable housing developer, because the sewer easement area would be available to the public at large in accordance with the appropriate rules, regulations, and standards of a metropolitan sewer district.

Apart from the constitutional requirements, the taking of the easement satisfied a state statutory mandate that a taking by a governmental entity must be for a “public use or benefit.” Under the public benefit test for eminent domain, the city’s desired use of the condemned property was for “the public use or benefit” because that use would contribute to the general welfare and prosperity of the public at large, not just particular individuals or estates.

In the case before the court, extending the sewer lines would allow development of the city’s neighboring property, which the city sought to sell to the private developer to construct affordable housing. The existing pump station had sufficient capacity to service the city’s land, and requiring the city instead to construct a sewer pump station on its land would have resulted in wasteful and unnecessary duplication of the city’s resources. These facts added up to a public use or benefit justifying the taking, notwithstanding some benefits undeniably accruing to private parties as well.