Liability Aspects of Pedestrian Facilities (2015)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

F-1 APPENDIX F—RESPONSES TO THE PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES NATIONAL SURVEY Survey Questions Total Number of Respondents "Yes" Responses "No" Responses In the past five years, has a disabled person filed a formal or informal complaint against the agency? 36 22 14 If yes, what type of complaint? What were the reasons for the complaint? Was the complaint resolved? 20 20 0 If YES, how was it resolved? Did the agency pay attorney’s fees to the complainant's attorney? 27 0 27 Did the agency make changes to the sidewalks or other facilities as a result of the complaint? 31 18 13 Were changes in policy implemented as a result of the complaint 31 10 21 What kinds of changes were implemented? Has a lawsuit been filed by a disabled person or group representing disabled people against the agency in the last five years? 39 3 36 Did the case go to trial or was it settled? What defenses did the agency use? Were the defenses successful? 7 0 7 Please provide detail if necessary: Did the agency pay attorney’s fees to the plaintiff's attorney? 12 2 10 Did the agency make changes to the sidewalks or other facilities as a result of the complaint? 13 5 8 Were changes in policy implemented as a result of the complaint? 14 2 12 What kinds of changes were implemented? Has a lawsuit been filed against the agency that related to its pedestrian facilities in any way 38 15 23 Has a claim been made that a facility should have been replaced but wasn't? 35 7 28 Has a claim been made that the existing facility wasn't "good" or "safe enough" for some reason? 36 14 22 Please provide details or citations to appellate cases: What were the alleged injuries? If your agency has had multiple claims, please provide details about the nature of the claims and the alleged inju- ries: What types of defenses have been used? Were the defenses successful? 8 7 1 Has the agency enacted a "liability shifting" ordinance? 24 14 10 Has it been challenged successfully? 15 2 13 Please provide a citation to the ordinance or include the language.

F-2 In the past five years, has a disabled person filed a formal or informal complaint against the agency? Agency Name If yes, what type of complaint? What were the reasons for the complaint? If the complaint was resolved, how was it resolved? If the agency made changes to sidewalks or facilities, or changes in policy due to the complaint, what kind of changes were im- plemented? Arlington County, Virginia, Office of Human Rights, EEO, and ADA Public access to sidewalks and curb ramps. Lack of accessible fea- tures/maintenance of accessible features/non-compliance with federal regulations. Where deficiencies were found, the facility was repaired and brought up to current stan- dards. New policies were developed to include Access Board draft guide- lines for accessible rights of way. California Department of Transpor- tation Access barriers. Various, including lack of curb ramps, no accessible pedestrian signals, no accessible pedestrian detour through construction, side- walk/driveways impassable due to lifting, overgrown vegetation on sidewalk, signal timing insuffi- cient, uncontrolled right turns en- dangering pedestrians with sight impairments, obstructions on sidewalks, snow removal practices created a barrier. The complaints have been resolved either through a maintenance work order, traffic electrical work order, day labor project with Maintenance or a capital project. Many capital projects are currently in the project develop- ment process. A few complaints are staying on the transition plan until a planned roadway rehabilitation project removes the barrier. In 2010 Caltrans agreed to a settlement that in- cluded allocation of $1.1B for ADA specific projects over the next thirty years (starting at $25M/yr. for the first five years). Includes an annual report to the plaintiffs and a third party review of compliance for the first seven years. Temporary pedestrian accessible routes through construction zone policies were developed along with training for construction in- spectors. Changes were made to maintenance guidance on snow removal practices. Standard plans were reduced from the maximum slopes to allow for construction tolerances. Installation of APS is now required on all signal re- placements or signal upgrade pro- jects. Additional funding directed to ADA projects. A new grievance procedure was developed and implemented. Colorado Springs, City of Lack of curb cuts for individuals in wheelchairs, business A-frame signs blocking sidewalks for indi- viduals in wheelchairs, main en- trance not accessible to a his- torical City building, can't use a power scooter on some City park trails, lack of picnic tables high enough for individuals in a wheelchair, handicapped park- ing signage on ground not visible when it snows, and damaged sidewalk in front of citizen's home. Majority of complaints were about accessibility issues for indi- viduals confined to a wheelchair. Plan in place to add curb cuts; businesses were notified of being in violation of the ADA regarding A-frame signs; alternate entrance signage was displayed; citizen was notified of park trails that are safe for motorized scooters (provided park maps); informed citizen of pic- nic tables in the parks that are accessible for individuals in a wheelchair; erected handi- capped parking signs that are visible when it snows; and Streets repaired sidewalk for dis- abled citizen.

F-3 Delaware Department of Transpor- tation Concern about mobility on a sidewalk from home to bus stop. The person with a disability was unable to navigate the sidewalks due to ADA noncompliant pinch points in the newly constructed pedestrian access route. Being actively addressed now. Remedial ac- tions for noncompliant features are planned and will be presented to the complainant. More in-depth review/scoping of projects in the design phase. On- going education regarding ADA compliance. District of Columbia Department of Transpor- tation Intersection Repairs. Sidewalk and curb ramp were noncompliant at an intersection. A design was developed to fix the noncompli- ant corner and the entire intersection for ADA Compliance to achieve the Maximum Extent Feasible. Florida State Department of Transpor- tation Personal injury. Allegations of unsafe condition of sidewalk causing plaintiff to fall out of motorized chair and sustain injury. Plaintiff dismissed the case when facts learned through discovery revealed serious problems in his theory of liability as well as damages. Plaintiff's counsel was well-known for bringing questionable and even meritless claims. Not applicable. Georgia Department of Transpor- tation Limited/no access. Damaged curb and sidewalk on GDOT project. Installed temporary access until the project was completed. Not applicable. Helena, City of Unsafe route of travel from resi- dential home to the central downtown business area. In- cluded concerns about sidewalk conditions and inadequate or noncompliant ADA curb cuts. The complainant felt the response to address the matter was insuffi- cient and that the Self Evaluation and Transition Plan adopted in 1995 was incomplete and out- dated. A settlement agreement was negotiated by the Federal Highways Department, which in- cluded the following requirements: 1. The identified route of travel of the com- plaint be evaluated and be made a priority for future upgrades. 2. Evaluate the central downtown area and create a map of the downtown indicating the best routes of travel from all ADA parking spaces in public parking lots or structures and on street ADA spaces. 3. Evaluate and inventory the condition of all ADA curb ramps in the City. 4. Using the Curb Ramp Inventory map, in- clude the route of the complaint and identify four additional principal priority routes of pe- destrian travel for future upgrades. 5. Update the complaint process to include not only formal written ADA complaints but also any informal complaints and advise the complainant that the matter will be looked into and notification will be sent upon comple- tion of an investigation as to the results of the investigation. 1. The identified route of travel of the complaint was evaluated and was made priority one for future upgrades—All upgrades including new ADA curb cuts were com- pleted in October 2013. 2. The evaluation of the central downtown area and map of the downtown indicating the best routes of travel was completed in the fall of 2009. 3. The evaluation and inventory of all ADA curb ramps in the City was completed in June 2011. 4. Including the complaint route, four additional principal priority routes of pedestrian travel were identified for future upgrades in July 2011. As of today, 02/21/2014, the complaint route has been fully upgraded and fund- ing was secured in January 2014 to address the needed upgrades to priority route number 2.

F-4 6. Conduct a new self-evaluation and create a new Transition plan for the City. 5. The complaint process, to in- clude any type of format and ad- vise the complainant that the matter will be looked into and no- tification would be sent upon completion of an investigation as to the results of the investigation, was corrected in January 2009. 6. The City started the initial steps of conducting the self- evaluation and transition plan update in 2011. In addition, an engineering firm was contracted in December 2012 and January 2013 to evaluate a park and the first floor of the most used public facility in the City. Additional steps are underway in this proc- ess to determine the full scope of the required, including education of staff to complete the process or budgeting additional funds to secure an outside source to com- plete this requirement. Idaho Transporta- tion Department 2010—Regarding restrooms and parking spaces at rest areas along I-84 from Boise to Eastern State border. Regarding a ser- vice animal refused entrance into a facility at the Black Creek Rest Area. 2011—Regarding sidewalks and crosswalks for Highway 95 in Sandpoint. Regarding service dog banned from inside the restroom area at Midvale. 2012—Regarding sidewalks in the town of Sandpoint. Access. ITD is making changes to side- walks and crosswalks in a state- wide project. Customer education is also taking place, both inter- nally and externally. Policy changes were also made at ITD. Kansas Department of Transpor- tation An informal complaint from a citizen. Formal complaints from em- ployees that their disability was The informal complaint was that accessible parking at a safety rest area was not available. The formal complaints regarding the accommodation of disabled An investigation was conducted at the safety rest area and plans were made to modify the striping in the parking lot. The complainant was notified of the action being taken.

F-5 not accommodated. employees do not and did not in- volve physical access issues. The formal complaints regarding the accom- modation of disabled employees did not and do not involve physical access issues. Lawrence, City of We have received requests for services and modifications that we have been able to work through to an agreeable resolution. No of- ficial complaints Most frequent issues have been ramp modifications and parking in the central business district. Little Rock, City of Concerns were raised about pathways and foot bridges at the Little Rock Zoo; steepness, grade, and overall accessibility were the main concerns. An individual in a wheelchair felt the pathways were not safe. The City replaced and modified the pathways and footbridges at the Little Rock Zoo. Staff will make sure all future pathways and footbridges are in compliance with ADA. Maryland State Highway Administration Informal complaint, which then become formal complaint against a sub-recipient county. Same com- plainant also filed with FHWA against Maryland State Highway Administration and the county. Initially, lack of detectable warning surfaces (DWS) at some locations within a private development, the roads within which were taking into the county system for maintenance. This mushroomed as the complain- ant starting throwing in all sorts of unrelated issues. The State issued a directive to the county and an agreement is being prepared that requires the county to install DWS countywide. During the investigation, the State found the county had not updated its self-evaluation or transition plan. They are now under directive and agreement to do so within certain timeframes, etc. The State required the county to make changes through the installa- tion of DWS and comply with other necessary elements of ADA Title II compliance, i.e., update transition plans, evaluations, as well as other administrative elements. The State is currently rolling out an extensive sub-recipient policy statewide. Michigan Department of Transportation Informal complaints. 1) Sidewalk crumbling 2) Snow on sidewalk. Note: MDOT does not own side- walk and is not responsible for the maintenance of sidewalk. There is no wrongdoing on the part of MDOT. Complaints are being resolved by other parties. 1) City and county are addressing sidewalk con- dition. 2) Snow was removed by city. MDOT does not own sidewalk and is not responsible for the maintenance of sidewalk. No policy changes were necessary. Missouri Department of Transportation Accessibility needs along right of way, access to pedestrian push buttons, increased pedestrian access. Complainants unable to access crosswalks or other pedestrian facili- ties. Modifications of facilities in right –of-way Modifications to facilities in right-of- way New Jersey Department of Transportation Lack of handicapped parking, miss- ing and cracked sidewalks, utility pole blocking clear path. Complainants unable to access home due to lack of parking, unable to navigate pedestrian walkways due to missing or cracked sidewalks, and unable to access sidewalk due to utility pole obstructing path. NJDOT and/or the Township provided handi- capped parking in front of home, repaired side- walks, and removed or relocated utility pole. Once NJDOT was advised of the matters, the current ADA federal regulations were applied to resolve the issues (ADAAG and the Department of Justice's Standards for Accessible Design).

F-6 Oregon Department of Transportation Written ADA complaint to FHWA Division Office, which was for- warded to FHWA Headquarters in D.C. Inadequate ADA ramps and inade- quate sidewalk width on a newly reconstructed bridge. ADA ramps were constructed for the bridge side- walks. Justification for not providing adequate sidewalk width was provided, stating the limita- tions of the Bridge Capacity. Prior to this ADA complaint, ODOT did not have a process to approve and document ADA Design Excep- tions for Technically Infeasible and Undue Financial & Administrative Burden. A process was established to approve and document ADA De- sign Exceptions and the process was put into the ODOT Highway Design Manual. Papillion, City of Wanted a sidewalk or trail installed along a roadway section. Needed a place to ride his wheel chair out of way of vehicle traffic flow. We are installing a 10-foot-wide trail along this section of roadway, it has taken a little longer than we would like due to it being a federal- funded project. We were already in the process of having this trail installed along this section of roadway, but NDOR/FHWA changes were imple- mented and the process is taking longer than expected. Scottsdale, City of We receive informal complaints approximately once each month, and approximately two or three formal complaints each year. The complaints are typically missing or substandard sidewalk ramps, in- adequate landing areas, inaccessi- ble pedestrian signal activation buttons, damaged or deteriorated sidewalks or multi-use paths, and inadequate bus service. We resolve complaints as quickly as possible. Typically, the missing or substandard sidewalk ramps require months or years to construct or reconstruct. Many of the inadequate bus service complaints require years to resolve or cannot be resolved. We have developed regular inspec- tion and maintenance programs for sidewalks and multi-use paths. We have developed multi-year pro- grams to construct or reconstruct sidewalk ramps. We have a City Council-adopted Complete Streets Policy with requirements for all pub- lic and private street improvements. Tennessee Department of Transportation Non-compliant sidewalk issues. After completion of roadway con- struction, sidewalks were not ade- quately accessible. Modification/reconstruction of deficient ele- ments. In all cases, department policy prop- erly addressed the ADA issue under review. Most of the issues were for projects that were locally managed by a sub-recipient entity. Also, in most cases the department re- quested modifications prior to any complaints by disabled persons. Additional training has been man- dated for staff and agency partners to ensure compliance during con- struction.

F-7 Vermont Agency of Transportation Employment discrimination. The complainant, who had been employed as a civil engineer, alleged that the State failed to provide him with reasonable accommodations for his mental disabilities. A three-judge panel of the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the complaint: https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/ UPEO2011Present/eo12-339.pdf

F-8 Has a lawsuit been filed against the agency that relates to pedestrian facilities in any way? Agency Name Please provide details or citations to appellate cases: What were the alleged injuries? If your agency has had multiple claims, please provide details about the nature of the claims and the alleged injuries: What types of defenses have been used? (i.e., the condition was open and obvious, the de- fect was de minimus, and the agency did not have notice of the condition, compliance with the MUTCD or other guide- lines?) Ann Arbor, City of Under Michigan law, local governments have immunity from tort liability except in limited circumstances. By statute, only certain "defects" in a roadway or sidewalk (and compliance by the claim- ant with certain notice requirements) can be the basis for a claimant to avoid the governmental immunity bar to li- ability. Most claims are rejected be- cause they do not avoid governmental immunity and most claims do not be- come lawsuits. In the last 5 years, we settled two cases arising from sidewalk incidents—one in which a bicyclist hit a tree with her handlebar at a point where there was a height discrepancy between sidewalk flags due to tree roots. Under the current statute, the discrepancy would not be a defect that would avoid immunity but at the time, the law was in flux. The other case we settled was one in which the plaintiff claimed of uneven pavement in excess of 2 inches. Two lawsuits: Case (1) - fractured hip and soft tissue injury; case set- tled. Case (2) - alleged fractured hip; case dismissed on City's motion for summary judg- ment. Because most claims are rejected as barred by gov- ernmental immunity, we often do not learn the de- tails of whatever injuries might be claimed. Aside from the two law- suits listed in answer to the previous question, we have had a few claims, most of which have not proceeded past the initial notice of claim letter. Two, both claiming uneven pavement in excess of 2 inches (the current statutory require- ment for a claim), involved knee or leg injuries and were settled without litiga- tion. (1) Governmental immunity; (2) not a defect giving rise to liability under the law (part of the governmental immunity bar to liability); (3) did not have prior notice and an opportu- nity to correct (part of the govern- mental immunity bar to liability); (4) claimant failed to give proper notice of his/her claim (part of the gov- ernmental immunity bar to liability).

F-9 Arizona Department of Transportation (2009)—Struck by vehicle causing death, (2011—Struck by vehicle, (2011)—Vehicle and pedestrian collision, (2012)—Struck by vehicle, (2012)—Left forearm was punc- tured by an ADOT sign/post. (2009)—Allegations that while crossing the road, claimant was struck by vehicle causing death. Settled —indemnity paid. (2011)—Claimant was struck by a vehicle while jay-walking; four street lights were not function- ing at the time of the ac- cident. Settled indemnity paid. (2011)—Claimant alleges negligent con- struction, which resulted in a vehicle and pedes- trian collision. Denial— Not ADOT's jurisdiction. (2012)—Claimant alleges son was struck by a vehi- cle while crossing the street due to inadequate warning to vehicles of pedestrian traffic. Ongo- ing. (2012)—Claimant al- leges when he was walk- ing through a construction zone, his left forearm was punctured by an ADOT sign/post. Tendered. Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department Claimant was walking on a grassy area approximately six feet from the sidewalk and fell into an open man hole. Abrasions and a sprained knee. 1. Claimant was walking on a grassy area ap- proximately six feet from the sidewalk and fell into an open man hole. 2. Claimant stepped into a hole near a utility pole next to a curb. Injured right knee and right arm. 3. Claimant was in a crosswalk in a median and the toe of her shoe 1. Contributory negligence, third party liability. (Case has not been adjudicated.) 2. Third party liability. 3. Department did not breach a legal duty owed to claimant and claimant did not respond to Department's Motion to Dismiss.

F-10 hung on a raised area of the pavement. Injured right shoulder. Florida State Department of Transportation FDOT receives numerous personal injury lawsuits from plaintiffs alleging in- juries from falls caused by unsafe sidewalk and curb conditions such as difference in elevation between sidewalk slabs, the existence of holes or depressions, or the pres- ence of gravel or objects. Allegations usually in- clude failure to inspect, maintain, repair, and warn of the allegedly dangerous condition, and that their injuries render them permanently dis- abled to some degree. Defenses usually include open and obvious, lack of prior notice, and design immunity. Facts learned through discovery often lead to a defense that the fall did not happen at the location al- leged, or that the alleged injury was caused by a prior or subse- quent event. The defenses of compliance with ADA standards or the MUTCD are usually not dis- positive; usually some fact ques- tion remains, requiring the case to continue to a jury trial. Be- cause of the high cost of defend- ing even a meritless case, and be- cause jurors are unpredictable and often have a negative animus against state and government de- fendants, most cases are settled well before trial. Hawaii Department of Transportation 1. Person tripped over a cable stretched across the sidewalk and fell, sustaining bodily injuries. 2. Person tripped over portion of a concrete slab, fell, and sustained serious personal injuries. Multiple claims regarding sidewalk. However, these claims are still active and we are unable to provide any additional informa- tion. The cases described above were settled prior to trial. Kansas Department of Transportation A disabled gentleman fell on a sidewalk ramp maintained by a city. KDOT was granted summary judgment at the dis- trict court as having no duty to maintain the sidewalk. No appeal was taken. A claim has been made that KDOT failed to maintain a sidewalk at a safety rest area. No lawsuit has been filed at this time. The disabled gentleman claimed that he injured his testes. In the claim, allegations have been made that the claimant injured her hand/thumb and her knees. KDOT had no duty to maintain the sidewalk. In appropriate circumstances, KDOT would anticipate using the recreational use exception to the Kansas Tort Claims Act, the defect was de minimus, the condition was open and obvious, and/or that KDOT had no duty to main- tain.

F-11 Lawrence, City of Under Kansas law, sidewalk maintenance is the responsi- bility of the adjacent property owner. Mississippi Department of Transportation More than 5 years ago, the Mississippi Transportation Commission was a defendant in an ADA suit that was set- tled for the amount of the At- torney fees and an agreement to update its ADA compliance. We have experienced nothing since then. Missouri Department of Transportation Lawsuits include slip and fall and trip and fall, failure to provide crosswalks. Numerous including abrasions and broken bones due to injury in area that plaintiff said should have been a crosswalk. The agency has been sued twice with allegations that a crosswalk should have been in place and was not. One of those accidents resulted in a fatality. Trip and fall, slip and fall, failure to provide facilities or upgrade facilities. Notice, open and obvious condi- tion, compliance with internal policy and MUTCD. New Jersey Department of Transportation No dangerous condition as de- fined in N.J.S.A. 59:4-2, Design Immunity; N.J.S.A 95:4-6, failure to provide signals; N.J.S.A. 4-5, Weather Immunity, not our prop- erty. New York State Department of Transportation In the past 5 years we have received multiple lawsuits that allege that defects in the SW have resulted in trip and fall accidents that injured a claimant. Generally speaking, a large crack, or differential settlement of some slabs that may have resulted in a toe stubbing lip that allegedly was the cause of the trip and fall. Numerous in nature from a broken bone/wrist, ankle, knee cap, or multiple bruises and injuries to muscular or abrasions to skin, etc. Nothing so severe as dramatic brain injury or similar. In the past 5 years we have received multiple lawsuits that allege that defects in the sidewalk have resulted in trip and fall accidents that injured a claimant. Generally speaking, a large crack, or differential settlement of some slabs that may have resulted in a toe stubbing lip that allegedly was the cause of the trip and fall. Notice, Maintenance Jurisdiction wasn't NY State—municipal, de- signed and constructed in compli- ance with good engineering stan- dards and practices and simply an issue with the pedestrian failing to pay attention. In some instances, the claimant may be correct that maintenance or replacement was due, and the dangerous condition did contrib- ute to a fall. We then take re- sponsibility and settle these cases.

F-12 Savannah, City of Claimant tripped over a 1/4 inch elevated brick while walking down sidewalk. Claimant tripped over ele- vated crack in sidewalk while walking. Sprains, lacerations, and fractured right knee. Sprains, lacerations, and fractured right knee. Generally, the City does not have prior knowledge of a specific de- fected area. We utilize the sover- eign immunity defense and some- times settle with minimal contribution in lieu of cost of de- fense. Scottsdale, City of One multi-use path frequently used by bicyclists had reverse super-elevation and a longi- tudinal uneven joint. This re- sulted in two lawsuits that were settled prior to trial— one for approximately $100,000 and the other for approximately $400,000. (The path was re-constructed prior to settlement.) Two current lawsuits are in process pertaining to a multi- use path horizontal curve at a "T-intersection" of paths prior to a tunnel. (The path is being re-designed.) Broken collarbone, broken arm, broken ribs, damaged wrist, seri- ous abrasions and cuts. Conditions were obvious. Compli- ance with MUTCD. Compliance with national requirements at time of initial construction and re- construction. Defense in past litigation were partially successful as they were settled prior to trial. South Dakota Department of Transportation Patitucci v. City of Hill City and Granite Sports Inc., 2013 S.D. 62. All of the listed examples have been used or would be used. In addition, the department enters into agreements with cities re- quiring cities to perform certain maintenance and repair functions on state highways within the ju- risdiction of the cities. DOT relies on these agreements to pass along these responsibilities. Sov- ereign immunity is also available for discretionary acts, including design decisions that require the exercise of judgment. Sovereign immunity is also available if there is no liability coverage or to the extent liability coverage is ex- ceeded.

F-13 Washington State Department of Transportation No appellate cases. Alleged injuries to face and body injuries (abrasions to trunk and face, broken teeth, bone injuries). Only one claim, not ADA, but pedestrian related to wheelchair fall. Alleged injuries to face and body injuries (abrasions to trunk and face, broken teeth, bone injuries). Notice of defect and compliance with existing design criteria. Set- tled prior to trial.

F-14 The following chart summarizes the responses received from cities and states regarding their liability shifting ordinances. Agency Name If the agency successfully enacted a "liability shifting ordinance," please pro- vide a citation to the ordinance or include the language here: Ann Arbor, City of Prior to a legislative change, property owners had responsibility under City Code for repair as well as for snow, ice, and debris removal. The City Code was amended to relieve most property owners of the repair obligation, based on a voter-approved mil- lage to fund sidewalk repairs by the City. Adjacent property owners still have an obligation to clear ice, snow and debris. See Sections 4:58 - 4:63 of the Ann Arbor City Code: http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=11782&stateId=22&stateName =Michigan Michigan courts have held that a city cannot shift liability to the adjacent prop- erty owner, even if the property owner was obligated to make the repairs to the sidewalk. See City of Ann Arbor v. Regents of the University of Michigan, 1997 WL 33344725 (No. 197238, Mich. Ct. App. July 1, 1997); Bivens v. Grand Rapids, 443 Mich. 391, 397; 505 NW2d 239 (1993). Arlington County, Virginia, Office of Human Rights, EEO, and ADA All Arlington County property owners are required to clean snow and ice from the entire width of the sidewalk after an event. http://arlingtonva.s3.amazonaws.com/wp- content/uploads/sites/28/2013/12/Snow-Removal-Ordinance.pdf Benton City, City of Abutting property owners must construct and maintain sidewalks. The duty and expense of inspection repair and snow removal falls on the adjacent property owner. http://ci.benton-city.wa.us/BCM%20CODE/Ch.%2012.05.docx Colorado Springs, City of Private Property Owner's Responsibility - Parking Lots, Driveways and Sidewalks. What is the property owner's responsibility with regard to snow and ice? City maintenance personnel and equipment cannot clear snow on private property. This includes parking lots, driveways and sidewalks for both residences and places of businesses. Residential property owners are responsible for clearing any sidewalks in front of their property within 24 hours of when snow stops fal- ling. The City will initially give written notice to property owners who fail to clear their sidewalks in a timely manner. Ultimately, the Engineering Inspection Divi- sion can impose fines for those who do not comply (see City Code Chapter 3, Ar- ticle 4 - Sidewalks, or click here for more information, including tips to help with sidewalk snow removal). ORDINANCES PENDING CODIFICATION. Ordinances listed below have been passed by the city, but have not been incor- porated in the actual city code. Please contact the office of the city clerk if there are any questions concerning the ordinances listed.

F-15 Agency Name If the agency successfully enacted a "liability shifting ordinance," please pro- vide a citation to the ordinance or include the language here: There are no City requirements relating to the condition of private driveways in winter storm situations. However, it is a violation of City ordinance to pile shov- eled snow in a street, or on another person's property. The best place to shovel snow is onto your lawn. Florida Department of Transportation FDOT often has agreements with local municipalities or counties placing mainte- nance and repair responsibility on them, and requiring them to defend and in- demnify the FDOT in any claims or suits arising from alleged negligent repair or maintenance. However, plaintiffs' attorneys usually craft the allegations to try to keep both the municipality or county and FDOT in the case so as to maximize re- covery potential. The municipalities and counties under such agreements usually pick up FDOT's defense and indemnify it, but sometimes they do not, which complicates the defenses and makes the litigation even more expensive. While defendants may agree that they may ultimately prevail at trial, as referenced above getting there is very costly, and juries are unpredictable and often are prejudiced against the State and government defendants in general, so most cases end up being settled rather than tried. Helena, City of 7-8-1: SNOW AND ICE: During the time of year when the fall of snow creates or tends to create ob- structed sidewalks or creates slippery sidewalks, it shall be the duty of every owner, lessee or occupant of premises in front of and/or to the side of which there is a sidewalk, to remove said snow, ice or obstruction within reasonable time after said snow has been deposited thereon, so as to avoid the walks be- coming treacherous or dangerous to the users of sidewalks in the city. (Ord. 2025, 1-24-1977) Kansas Department of Transportation KDOT is not a local agency. Kansas has numerous cities that have enacted local ordinances shifting the bur- den of sidewalk maintenance to the adjacent property owner. Lawrence, City of Ordinance 8324, December 2008 Requires property owners to remove ice and snow from sidewalk within 48 hours of end of snowfall / ice accumulation. Maryland State Highway Administration Various local municipalities, entities, HOAs, etc., in the State of Maryland may have "liability shifting" ordinance, rules, etc. On the State level, please refer to Sections 8-629 and 8-630 of the Transportation Article. Mason, City of 521.06 DUTY TO KEEP SIDEWALKS IN REPAIR AND CLEAN. (a) No owner or occupant of lots or lands abutting any sidewalk, curb or gutter shall fail to keep the sidewalks, curbs and gutters in repair and free from snow, ice or any nuisance, and to remove from the sidewalks, curbs or gutters all snow and ice accumulated thereon within a reasonable time, which will ordinarily not exceed 12 hours after any storm during which the snow and ice has accumulated. (R.C. § 723.011) (b) Whoever violates this section is guilty of a minor misdemeanor.

F-16 Agency Name If the agency successfully enacted a "liability shifting ordinance," please pro- vide a citation to the ordinance or include the language here: New Jersey Department of Transportation Maintenance Policy: As per NJAC 16:38-1.2, maintenance of sidewalks or drive- ways within the ROW limits shall be the responsibility of the owner of the abut- ting property regardless of the conditions of original construction. Snow Removal Policy: Owners of the property abutting a highway, road, street or thoroughfare under State jurisdiction shall be entirely responsible for the clearing of snow and ice from all abutting sidewalks and abutting driveway cuts, openings or aprons, whether or not they are located on public or private prop- erty. New York State Department of Transportation NYS Highway Law Ref. to Section 54 and 58 in addition to case law decisions. South Dakota Department of Transportation South Dakota Codified Law 9-46-2. Vermont Agency of Transportation A state statute authorizes municipalities to adopt local ordinances requiring re- moval of snow and ice from sidewalks by the owner, occupant or person having charge of abutting property. See Vt. Stat. Ann., tit. 24, section 2291(2). However, another state statute provides for landowner immunity from claims by persons using sidewalks constructed on the landowner's property. See Vt. Stat. Ann., tit. 19, section 2309. Washington State Department of Transportation Agencies have enacted these types of ordinances: Clark County Code Ch. 12.26—Sidewalk Maintenance and Repair Cheney Municipal Code Ch. 12.20—Construction of Curbs and Sidewalks Duvall Municipal Code Ch. 8.02—Sidewalk Repair and Maintenance Edmonds City Code Ch. 9.20—Sidewalk Construction and Maintenance Kirkland Municipal Code Ch. 19.20—Sidewalks, Curbs and Gutters—Construction and Maintenance Longview Municipal Code Ch. 12.28—Sidewalk Construction, Maintenance and Repair Puyallup Municipal Code Ch. 11.20—Sidewalk Construction and Reconstruction Seattle Sidewalk Maintenance and Repair SDOT Client Assistance Memo 2208, 01/2010 Snohomish Municipal Code Ch. 1.—Sidewalk Maintenance and Repair Tacoma Tacoma Municipal Code Ch. 10.18 Sidewalks—Construction, Reconstruction and Repair Tacoma Municipal Code Ch. 10.20—Sidewalks—Repairs Pursuant to Agreement. Wyoming Department of Transportation We do not have an ordinance but rather state statute that requires that towns of 1500 or more are responsible for snow removal. Towns under 1500 the depart- ment takes care of snow removal along our highways. Cities can pass ordinances for snow removal and time frames.