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.

CONTENTS I. Introduction, 3 II. The 2009 Revision of the MUTCD, 4 A. The MUTCD as the National Standard, 4 B. Overview of the 2009 MUTCD, 4 C. MUTCD’s Standards, Guidance, Options, and Support, 5 D. Discussion of SoPe Speci¿c ChanJes in the 2009 MUTCD, 5 E. Revision 1 of the MUTCD, 9 F. Revision 2 of the MUTCD, 10 G. Dates of State Adoption of the 2009 MUTCD, 10 III. State Reaction to the 2009 MUTCD, 11 A. ChanJes Identi¿ed as BeinJ 3otentiall\ Bene¿cial, 11 B. ChanJes Identi¿ed as BeinJ 3otentiall\ DetriPental, 11 IV. The 2009 MUTCD’s Effect on Government Tort /iaEilit\, 12 A. The MUTCD and the Use of EnJineerinJ -udJment, 12 B. Mandator\ 3rovisions of the MUTCD, 13 C. Nonmandator\ 3rovisions of the MUTCD, 14 D. Transportation Departments’ OEliJations Under Other State Statutes, 15 V. Tort Claims AJainst Transportation Departments Before and After the 2009 MUTCD, 16 A. Claims After the 2009 MUTCD, 16 B. Tort Claims 3rior to the 2009 MUTCD, 1 VI. The MUTCD and Tort /iaEilit\ of Transportation Departments, 1 A. /iaEilit\ Under Tort Claims Acts, 1 B. E[tent of the :aiver of Government Tort Immunit\, 19 C. Transportation Departments’ Defenses to Claims InvolvinJ the MUTCD, 20 D. :hether Departments +ave a Dut\ to 3rovide Traf¿c Control Devices, 21 E. :hether a Dut\ Arises :hen There Is a DanJerous Condition, 22 F. The Standard of Care and the MUTCD, 25 G. :hether a Violation of the MUTCD Constitutes NeJliJence Per Se, 26 +. The MUTCD and 3ro[imate Cause, 2 I. ContriEutor\ NeJliJence or Comparative Fault, 2 -. Role of the -ur\ in MUTCD Cases, 2 VII. Immunities of Transportation Departments :hen UsinJ Their Discretion in Appl\inJ the MUTCD, 29 A. The MUTCD and the Discretionar\ Function E[emption, 29 B. The Discretionar\±Ministerial Distinction, 33 C. :hether to DistinJuish Between Functions and Acts in 3erforminJ Functions, 34 D. :hether 3rioriti]inJ E\ a Transportation Department Is a Defense in an MUTCD Case, 34 E. The Requirement that There Be an Actual Exercise of Discretion, 35 F. The Exercise of Discretion and RecordNeepinJ, 36 VIII. Traf¿c Control Devices Under the MUTCD and the Exercise of Discretion, 3 A. The MUTCD and Immunit\ for a NeJliJent 3lan or DesiJn, 3 B. DesiJn Immunit\ Statutes, 39 C. The MUTCD and /iaEilit\ for +iJhwa\ Maintenance, 41 D. The MUTCD and /iaEilit\ for SiJns and :arninJ SiJns, 42 E. The MUTCD and /iaEilit\ for Traf¿c SiJnals, 44 F. The MUTCD and /iaEilit\ for Stop SiJns and Speed /imit SiJns, 46 G. The MUTCD and /iaEilit\ for 3avement MarNinJs, 4 +. Statements in the MUTCD ReJardinJ Barriers and Guardrails, 4 Conclusion, 49 Appendix A: Surve\ of Transportation Departments, A1 Appendix B: Summar\ of Surve\ Responses of Transportation Departments, B1 Appendix C: /ist of Transportation Departments RespondinJ to the Surve\, C1