In Applegate v. Ota (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 702, the appellate court considered the scope of an easement over a one-lane road. (Applegate, supra, 146 Cal.App.3d at pp. 711-713.) The trial court had awarded a 20-foot wide easement that continued for the length of the road -- even though the road was only 10-feet wide -- reasoning that cars affiliated with the dominant tenement should be able to pass each other on the shoulder. (Applegate, supra, 146 Cal.App.3d at 711-713.) In so ruling, the trial court relied on testimony showing that vehicles affiliated with the dominant tenement needed a minimum of five feet of shoulder on each side to pass each other, even though cars did not often pass one another on the road. (Applegate, supra, 146 Cal.App.3d at p. 712.) Testimony also showed that the 5-foot area outside of the paved portion of the road did not threaten the servient estate's crops that were growing alongside the road. (Ibid.) On appeal, the Applegate court concluded substantial evidence supported the trial court's award. The Applegate court relied in part on an earlier case, Stevens v. Mostachetti (1946) 73 Cal.App.2d 910, where the appellate court had affirmed a 20-foot wide easement on a road "where 20 feet appeared to be an average width and where it was clear that not all 20 feet were used for the entire length of the road." (Applegate, supra, 146 Cal.App.3d at p. 712.) Applying the same reasoning to the facts before it, the Applegate court stated: "we find no error in that order," given that it "was fashioned to allow maximum necessary use . . . that . . . would not impose a greater burden on the servient tenement." (Applegate, supra, 146 Cal.App.3d at p. 711.)