(concurring in part, dissenting in part) — I concur in that portion of the majority opinion holding that injunctive relief is inappropriate and London must seek her remedy in damages. However, I cannot agree that the damage suffered is loss of a mere easement in East James Street. In my opinion, PMC should not be able to deny that London had the usual ownership rights of an abutting owner to one-half the vacated street and thus suffered loss of a fee interest.
The long established general rule governing street vacation provide» that title reverts to the abutting owners, one-half to each. RCW 35.79.040; see, e.g., Gifford v. Horton, 54 *668Wash. 595, 103 P. 988 (1909). The majority does not apply this rule on the ground that the "particular circumstances" of the case control when one abutting owner has the entire fee interest in the vacated street. In such cases, it argues, the other abutting owner takes no title upon vacation. See, e.g., Rowe v. James, 71 Wash. 267, 128 P. 539 (1912); RCW 35.79.050. While I agree that this qualification to the general rule correctly states the law, I do not believe it is applicable in this case because the "particular circumstances" the court may consider can include other factors in the case.
We have held that no language is required in a dedication of a street to reserve the fee to the dedicators, but that the ultimate question is what the dedicator intended. See, e.g., Rainier Ave. Corp. v. Seattle, 80 Wn.2d 362, 365-66, 494 P.2d 996 (1972). The majority finds that PMC intended to convey only a street easement to the City and thus concludes that PMC has the entire fee upon vacation and London suffered only loss of an easement. PMC's intent is evidenced by affidavits from PMC representatives and city officials. To look to the dedicator's self-serving statements of intent in this case, out of context, as controlling on the court, obscures an apparent purpose of the creation of James Street — to compensate London for the loss of through access on 17th Avenue.
Two conveyances were filed on October 22, 1963, by PMC. Both recited they were "for and in consideration of the vacation of a portion of 17th Avenue." The first conveyed to the City of Seattle "for street purposes" the land for James Street. The second was an unrestricted deed conveying "all interest" in the land "for street purposes."
The facts on appeal show that when London purchased her property in 1960, she had access from either the north or south along 17th Avenue. Three years later, PMC petitioned for vacation of a portion of 17th Avenue lying just north of London. We have long held that a nonabutter to a vacated street who sustains injury different in kind from that suffered by the general public suffers compensable *669damages. E.g., State v. Wineberg, 74 Wn.2d 372, 444 P.2d 787 (1968); Taft v. Washington Mut. Sav. Bank, 127 Wash. 503, 221 P. 604 (1923). Vacation of 17th Avenue without any change in adjacent streets would have eliminated London's through access, placing her at nearly the end of a dead-end street. The better rule is that a nonabutter in the same block as the vacated portion suffers compensable damage for loss of access in one direction. 11 E. McQuillin, Municipal Corporations § 30.193 (3d ed. 1977); cf. Mottman v. Olympia, 45 Wash. 361, 88 P. 579 (1907) (no damages where vacation simply deflected traffic 1 block east or west and no cul-de-sac was created); Ponischil v. Hoquiam Sash & Door Co., 41 Wash. 303, 83 P. 316 (1906) (no damages for property owner at entrance of newly created culde-sac); see generally 2A J. Sackman, Nichols' Law of Eminent Domain § 6.4443[3] (3d rev. ed. 1979).
Although London could have sought damages for loss of her through access on 17th Avenue, it is logical to conclude one reason for not doing so was what appeared to be the dedication by PMC of a full fee interest in James Street to the City and a corresponding interest in the street to abutting owners in the event it was later vacated. To now have PMC deny her even a claim to a compensable interest in that fee on the basis of its undisclosed intent is to go too far.
Rowe v. James, supra at 270, establishes that "the general rule may be controlled by the peculiar circumstances of the case." Here, it would be manifestly unfair for PMC to first obtain a vacation of 17th Avenue by granting what would only appear to London as a full fee interest in James Street, and then to take a different position when it was to PMC's advantage. The Rowe case gives this court the flexibility to strike down such action regardless of what may have been PMC's unstated intent to only grant an easement.
I would hold PMC bound by the language of its conveyance dedicating the full fee and require the trial court to assess damages to London based on the taking of her one-*670half ownership interest in James Street, rather than only compensate her for the loss of an easement in James Street.
Rosellini, Brachtenbach, and Horowitz, JJ., concur with Utter, C. J.
Reconsideration denied July 25, 1980.