Effect of MUTCD on Tort Liability of Government Transportation Agencies (2014)

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.

62 TABLE 2 NEW YORK MUTCD CASES (2005–2012) PROVIDED BY THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Case & Citation Issue MUTCD Section(s) at Issue Decision Final Outcome Blaze v. New York (2012-015-378) Whether the DOT was required to have left-turn signals for both east- bound and west- bound traffic on Route 5. Formerly 17 NYCRR §§ 271.2(f), 272.2, 272.16; Summary judgment for the DOT granted. Plaintiff’s claims dismissed. For the DOT. Burchard v. New York (2012-018-324) Whether the DOT is liable for failing to have the appropriate distance, according to the MUTCD, between two signs. Not Mentioned Plaintiff’s claims dismissed. For the DOT. Bensalah v. New York (2012-015-544) Whether the DOT negligently designed highway Route 32. 17 NYCRR §§ 213.2(a)(1), 213.5(a)(3), 253.2(a)(4) Judgment as a matter of law for the DOT granted. For the DOT. Nichols v. New York (2012-037-039) Whether the signs at the area of the accident were confusing and not in conformance with the MUTCD. Not Mentioned Summary judgment for the DOT granted. For the DOT. Politi v. New York (2012-015-535) Whether the accident was caused by the negligent design, construction, or maintenance of the highway. 17 NYCRR §§ 230.2, 231.3, 231.5 Case dismissed following a trial. For the DOT. Giamportone v. New York (2011-039-273) Whether the construction zone present on the road at the time of the accident constituted a dangerous condition that was a proximate 17 NYCRR § 232.1 DOT’s motion for summary judgment denied because triable issues of fact remain. For the Plaintiff.

63 Case & Citation Issue MUTCD Section(s) at Issue Decision Final Outcome cause of the accident. Pierce v. New York (2011-031-049) Whether the DOT failed to install proper signs. Not Mentioned Summary judgment for the DOT granted. For the DOT. Terrazas v. New York (2011-018-222) Whether the absence of a traffic signal or pedestrian island was the proximate cause of the accident. 17 NYCRR §§ 271.2(e), 271.5, 271.6(c) Case dismissed following a trial. For the DOT. Champney v. New York (2011-038-102) Whether the DOT failed to comply with the MUTCD in its design and signing of the intersection. 17 NYCRR § 211 Case dismissed following a trial. For the DOT. Dispenza v. New York (2010-013-503) Whether the DOT was negligent in failing to post warnings or take other precautions that would have prevented motor vehicles from coming into contact with still- wet paint on the roadway. 17 NYCRR § 300.3 DOT found liable following a trial because it created a dangerous condition. For the Plaintiff. Grevelding v. New York (2010-018-137) Whether the DOT should have placed a variable message sign on a stretch of highway with accumulated snow. 17B NYCRR § 201.3 Case dismissed following a trial. For the DOT. Merklen v. New York (2010-038-102) Whether the intersection of County Route 1 and State Route 443 was designed in conformance with the MUTCD. Not Mentioned Case dismissed following a trial. For the DOT.

64 Case & Citation Issue MUTCD Section(s) at Issue Decision Final Outcome Olley v. New York (2009-044-018) Whether the “No Shoulder” sign at the scene of the accident was in compliance with the MUTCD. 17 NYCRR § 234.10 The DOT was found to be 50 percent liable and the plaintiff was found to be 50 percent liable, following a trial. For the Plaintiff. Gardner v. New York (2009-018-047) Whether the DOT should have temporarily reduced the speed limit and placed warning signs at the Park Street Bridge location. 17B NYCRR §§ 201.3, 212.2, 234.9, 239.1 Case dismissed following a trial. For the DOT. Shon v. New York (2009-015-515) Whether the DOT failed to properly maintain the roadway where the accident occurred and erect proper signage warning of the danger. 17 NYCRR § 200.1(c) The DOT was found to be 50 percent liable and the plaintiff was found to be 50 percent liable following a trial. For the Plaintiff. Sittner v. New York (2009-031-502) Whether the absence of a second “Stop” sign at the intersection of New York State Route 30 and New York State Route 161 was the proximate cause of the accident. 17 NYCRR §§ 211.3(7)(b)(2), 232.4(a) Case dismissed following a trial. For the DOT. NY Central Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. New York (2008-031-069) Whether the DOT failed to properly design, construct, maintain, and place appropriate traffic control devices at the intersection that was the scene of the accident. Not Mentioned Plaintiff’s motion to file a late claim denied. For the DOT. Beaumont v. New York Whether the DOT properly maintained a 17 NYCRR § 232.4 FedEx was found to be 80 percent liable and For the Plaintiff.

65 Case & Citation Issue MUTCD Section(s) at Issue Decision Final Outcome (2008-018-643) “Stop” sign. the DOT was found to be 20 percent liable. Woods v. New York (2008-010-003) Whether the layout, signage of the exit ramp, and striping of the final curve of the exit ramp were in compliance with the MUTCD. Not Mentioned DOT’s Motion to Dismiss granted. For the DOT. Sanchez v. New York (2008-036-401) Whether the DOT was negligent for not placing a guide rail or other physical barrier on the median island. Not Mentioned Case dismissed following a 2-day trial. For the DOT. Melkun v. New York (2007-030-031) Whether the DOT negligently failed to undertake an adequate study of the design and plan of the rail trail, as well as its final construction in the area where it crosses the State highway, and that the crossing was designed and constructed contrary to proper engineering, traffic and safety practices. Not Mentioned Case dismissed following a trial. For the DOT. Levine v. New York State Thruway Authority (2006-028-016) Whether the Authority was required to erect signs making motorists aware of both known and hidden dangers when they drive through a construction site. Maintenance and Protection of Traffic (derived from the MUTCD) Authority liable for injuries. For the Plaintiff.

66 Case & Citation Issue MUTCD Section(s) at Issue Decision Final Outcome Carlo v. New York (2006-030-021) Whether the DOT failed to properly design and maintain the roadway and install adequate pedestrian crosswalks. Not Mentioned Case dismissed following a trial. For the DOT. Madore v. New York (2006-030-007) Whether the DOT negligently designed and maintained the intersection of State Route 9 and Roa Hook Road and deviated from engineering standards. 17 NYCRR §§ 272.11(b), 272.12 (a) Case dismissed following a trial. For the DOT. Schmidt v. New York (2005-013-505) Whether the DOT failed to maintain the traffic signal at the intersection of Lockport Road and Route 425 such that the signal simultaneously displayed green and red signals. 17 NYCRR §§ 272.9, 272.10(f)(3), 272.11, 272.12 Plaintiff was found to be 60 percent liable and the DOT was found to be 40 percent liable. For the Plaintiff. Hinman v. New York (2005-018-463) Whether the DOT was negligent when it constructed a culvert off the shoulder of State Route 31 without a warning sign, grade cover, or guardrail. New York State Highway Design Manual § 10.2.1.1 Case dismissed following a trial. For the DOT. Wadsworth v. New York (2005-018-458) Whether the DOT negligently constructed, designed, and maintained the bridge overpass connecting Griffiss Park to Route 49. New York State Department of Transportation Highway Design Manual §§ 10.4.2, 10.2.2.4(B) Case dismissed following a trial. For the DOT.