Effect of MUTCD on Tort Liability of Government Transportation Agencies (2014) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 16-17
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 16... ...
16 the department stated that "[t] here are also sections in the Code of Virginia that establish specific requirements for traffic signage."164 The Wisconsin DOT's response identified other statutes that are applicable to the department.165 On the other hand, six transportation departments reported that there are statutes in their states that exempt the department from liability specifically for not providing certain highway features, such as signs, pavement markings, traffic signals, or other devices.166 For example, Iowa Code Section 668.10(1)
|
From page 17... ...
17 and substandard," the court granted Caltrans' motion for summary judgment.171 Kansas reported that it has had: • Two cases that settled alleging that temporary striping on an Interstate did not comply with Sections 3B.04, 6A.0l, 6F.77, and 6F.78 of the MUTCD. • Two cases decided in favor of the department alleging that a pilot car operation was not signed in accordance with Sections 6A.0l, 6F.58, and 6C.13 and the Notes and Figure for Section 6H-I0 of the MUTCD.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.