context: Plaintiffs' other evidence of public use is unavailing. Darlin Brin's testimony that he and neighborhood children played in the roads and that he walked the roads to travel from his house to Charlotte Amalie High School does not establish an easement for vehicular use, which Plaintiffs seek. Similarly, DeLugo's testimony that "anyone trying to beat traffic" would use the hotel's roads and parking lot as a cut-through road does not establish by clear and convincing evidence an intent on the part of BCI or its predecessors to dedicate the entrance and exit roads and middle aisle of the hotel parking lot to the public for a public highway.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.parenthetical: use of a driveway in commercial area "by persons not desiring to shop or to park, but who intended to drive [through] as a matter of convenience or to avoid a traffic light" was insufficient to show offer to dedicate by property owner
citation_a.sentence: See Blank v. Park Lane Center, 209 Md. 568, 121 A.2d 846, 848 (Md. 1956) (use of a driveway in commercial area “by persons not desiring to shop or to park, but who intended to drive [through] as a matter of convenience or to avoid a traffic light” was insufficient to show offer to dedicate by property owner); see also Shapiro Bros. v. Jones-Festus Properties, 205 S.W.3d 270, 277-278 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006) (fact that some members of the general public used parking lot of shopping establishment as a shortcut was insufficient to show an offer to dedicate); Security Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v. C & C Investments, 448 N.W.2d 83, 87-89 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989) (use of parking lot as a cut through is insufficient to demonstrate an offer to dedicate); Snow v. Murphy, 248 Mich. 659, 227 N.W. 544, 545 (Mich. 1929) (“mere permissive use of a private road by the general public, however long continued, will not make it a public highway”).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 205 S.W.3d 270, 277-278
citation_b.parenthetical: fact that some members of the general public used parking lot of shopping establishment as a shortcut was insufficient to show an offer to dedicate
citation_b.sentence: See Blank v. Park Lane Center, 209 Md. 568, 121 A.2d 846, 848 (Md. 1956) (use of a driveway in commercial area “by persons not desiring to shop or to park, but who intended to drive [through] as a matter of convenience or to avoid a traffic light” was insufficient to show offer to dedicate by property owner); see also Shapiro Bros. v. Jones-Festus Properties, 205 S.W.3d 270, 277-278 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006) (fact that some members of the general public used parking lot of shopping establishment as a shortcut was insufficient to show an offer to dedicate); Security Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v. C & C Investments, 448 N.W.2d 83, 87-89 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989) (use of parking lot as a cut through is insufficient to demonstrate an offer to dedicate); Snow v. Murphy, 248 Mich. 659, 227 N.W. 544, 545 (Mich. 1929) (“mere permissive use of a private road by the general public, however long continued, will not make it a public highway”).