The National Academies Press

Currently Skimming:

Pages 73-96

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 73... ... B-1 APPENDIX B -- SUMMARY OF SURVEY RESPONSES OF TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENTS 1. Has the 2009 revision of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) Read the entire page →
From page 74... ... B-2 California Caltrans reported on two cases identified as cases A and B In case A, the plaintiff alleged there should have been a "Narrow Bridge Ahead" sign on a highway running along a cut slope, elevated from surrounding area and flanked on either side by [a] Read the entire page →
From page 75... ... B-3 Indiana Indiana reported having cases that involved allegations of negligent design, negligent maintenance, negligent signage, flooding, and signage blocked by vegetation. At issue were MUTCD provisions on highway design, maintenance, and repair, as well as signing and grade intersection markings. Read the entire page →
From page 76... ... B-4 In the case files we reviewed for purposes of responding to this survey, problem driver behavior appeared to be the cause of a crash. For example, in one case, a group of young men driving down an interstate decided to write notes on paper to induce a woman in a nearby car to call them. Read the entire page →
From page 77... ... B-5 Indiana Indiana also stated that revisions 1 and 2 to the 2009 MUTCD, issued in May of 2012, will have the effect of reducing the potential for liability. With respect to revision 1, the 2011 Indiana MUTCD had its own definition of Standard, but it is anticipated that the revised definition in the 2009 MUTCD will also help to support the agency's position in a tort claim. Read the entire page →
From page 78... ... B-6 Indiana Indiana stated that there are many new standards and guidance statements in the 2009 MUTCD that increase the potential for liability. The department said that "[o] Read the entire page →
From page 79... ... B-7 revised MUTCD could potentially result in meritless claims associated with a failure to meet specified deadlines, even when circumstances or situations would not necessarily warrant compliance by the specified date. For instance, see the compliance date of December 31, 2019 for Sections 2C.06 through 2C.14 (Horizontal Alignment of Warning Signs) Read the entire page →
From page 80... ... B-8 • The Indiana Design Manual (IDM) recommends that INDOT designers and our consultants refer to the MUTCD for proper selection and detailing of permanent and temporary traffic control devices. Read the entire page →
From page 81... ... B-9 nance personnel. Additionally, highway design plans, construction contracts, and other highway use permits require that there be compliance with the MUTCD."605 6. Read the entire page →
From page 82... ... B-10 Michigan Michigan reported that "[i] f work is done per a contract, records regarding the development of the plans are maintained until the letting of the project. Read the entire page →
From page 83... ... B-11 (b) Fifteen Transportation departments also reported that when records are kept the department keeps a record of who made the decision and what the basis was for the decision.609 Other departments indicated that they do not keep a record of such information.610 Alabama Alabama noted that "[s] Read the entire page →
From page 84... ... B-12 (c) The number of years that such information is maintained varied from department to department, ranging from 3612 to 5,613 7,614 or 10615 years or for an unlimited time,616 but one department stated that records are retained until reconstruction.617 The Arizona DOT reported that "[p] Read the entire page →
From page 85... ... B-13 New Hampshire New Hampshire stated that "there is limited liability, and sovereign immunity until notified of a deficiency, but we need to develop a plan to correct within 4 days." Pennsylvania Pennsylvania stated that "case law requires highways to be kept reasonably safe for [their] intended, foreseeable use." Virginia The Virginia DOT explained that [w] Read the entire page →
From page 86... ... B-14 California Caltrans stated that such a duty exists "[n] ot specifically, but in general," and that "Street and Highway Code Section 27 impose[s] Read the entire page →
From page 87... ... B-15 devices, the department referred to sections of the Code of Virginia "that may be somewhat responsive," including Sections 33.1-210, 46.2-806, 46.2-1104, 46.2-1110, and 46.2-1312. Wisconsin Wisconsin provided a list of statutes and case citations, including Wisconsin Statutes Sections 349.065 (uniform traffic control devices) Read the entire page →
From page 88... ... B-16 Arkansas Arkansas said that its defenses include that the "[c] laimant has a wrong interpretation [of] Read the entire page →
From page 89... ... B-17 • Engineering judgment was used and a decision based on engineering judgment called for something different than what was in the MUTCD. • Compliance with the EPG. Read the entire page →
From page 90... ... B-18 • The provision alleged to be violated was guidance, not a Standard, and therefore was discretionary, not mandatory. • The Manual is not a legal requirement to install any sign. Read the entire page →
From page 91... ... B-19 • The department's lack of notice. Nebraska For Nebraska the most successful defenses are • Discretionary immunity. Read the entire page →
From page 93... ... B-21 sponsible for other highways including signing on those highways, i.e. city streets, township roads, and county roads. Read the entire page →
From page 94... ... B-22 (b) Only one department reported that its state courts may follow the United States Supreme Court's interpretation of the discretionary function exemption in the FTCA in Indian Towing v. Read the entire page →
From page 95... ... B-23 Nevada Nevada advised that in Martinez v. Maruszezak, 123 Nev. Read the entire page →
From page 96... ... B-24 Missouri Missouri stated: "Our employees are protected by the official and discretionary immunity doctrines. However, the agency is still responsible for the actions of the employees assuming they are working in the scope and course of their employment." Wisconsin Wisconsin stated: In Wisconsin, the primary questions regarding liability will be "who made the decision" and "was the decision discretionary." Fundamental highway design decisions are governmental decisions. Read the entire page →

From page 73...

... B-1 APPENDIX B -- SUMMARY OF SURVEY RESPONSES OF TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENTS 1. Has the 2009 revision of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)