Case Title: Johnson v. Agency of Transportation

Citation: 180 Vt. 493, 2006 VT 37, 904 A.2d 1060

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2006-05-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
Johnson v. Agency of Transportation (2005-090); 180 Vt. 493; 904 A.2d 1060

2006 VT  37

[Filed 08-May-2006]
                                          
                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2006 VT  37

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2005-090

                             JANUARY TERM, 2006


  Bridget M. Johnson                  }          APPEALED FROM:
                                      }
                                      }          Chittenden Superior Court    
      v.                              }
                                      }
  Agency of Transportation            }          DOCKET NO. S1004-03 Cnc

                                                 Trial Judge: Richard W. Norton

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶   1.  Plaintiff Bridget M. Johnson appeals from an order granting
  summary judgment in favor of defendant Agency of Transportation (AOT). 
  Plaintiff had sued AOT for damages for injuries she sustained in an
  automobile accident, arguing that AOT was negligent in failing to provide
  adequate temporary traffic control during routine traffic signal
  maintenance.  The trial court held that the lawsuit was barred by the
  discretionary function exception to the Vermont Tort Claims Act, 12 V.S.A.
  § 5601(e)(1).  We affirm.

       ¶   2.  The following facts are undisputed.  At approximately noon on
  September 10, 2002, AOT traffic signal technician Russell Velander
  performed routine maintenance work on a master traffic signal controller at
  the intersection of U.S. Route 7 and Mountain View Drive in Colchester,
  Vermont.  The maintenance was intended to coordinate a series of traffic
  signals along Route 7.  During the maintenance, Velander put the traffic
  signal at that intersection on manual flash mode.  Once turned to manual
  flash, the traffic signal flashed yellow for motorists traveling on Route 7
  and flashed red for motorists traveling on Mountain View Drive.  No other
  traffic control was used during this seventeen-minute interval. 

       ¶   3.  Shortly after Velander set the signal to flashing mode,
  plaintiff approached the intersection in the south-bound, right-hand lane
  of Route 7.  At the same time, Marguerite Majarian attempted to turn left
  from Mountain View Drive into a north-bound lane of Route 7.  Majarian
  struck the passenger side of plaintiff's vehicle, causing serious injury to
  plaintiff.  
   
       ¶   4.  Plaintiff brought a negligence suit against AOT, alleging
  that the accident was caused by Velander's negligence in: (1) "putting the
  traffic control signal on flashing red and yellow at this time of day,"
  i.e., a time of heavy traffic volume; and (2) "failing to provide adequate
  traffic control during this period of routine maintenance."  The trial
  court granted AOT's motion for summary judgment, holding that "a state
  employee's decisions as to the time and manner of traffic signal
  maintenance fall[] within the discretionary function exception to the
  Vermont Tort Claims Act."   Plaintiff concedes on appeal that the timing of
  traffic signal maintenance is a discretionary function within the meaning
  of 12 V.S.A. § 5601(e)(1) but appeals the trial court's conclusions as to
  the manner of the maintenance.  We review the grant of summary judgment
  under the same standard as the trial court:  we will not affirm unless
  there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is
  entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  Lane v. State, 174 Vt. 219, 222,