i don't believe that was a part of the system went into preemption to send the lights into mold whereby vehicles were kept away from the tracks it was it's just a stop and go like right now your honor respectfully is not and that was a bone it triggers the traffic control signals to go into a mode that is supposed to keep vehicles away from the tracks because of the approach of a train now that preemption system is constructed by home by metr triggers and the laser takes over control over the ordinary traffic installments at at the same if that's not installed by metro that's installed by the city director of cars that still wouldn't necessarily even if it were installed by a matter of i'm not asking whether the right and left tyneside yes that would have been in place or don't honor the the blanket signs that would have been in place would have been matched rather that made it i imagine would still be in the city because that's not preempt well specifically actually your honor the system the preemption system is set forth in the manual in uniform traffic control devices as to what it's supposed to do and that system as it was i rebelled the trial is supposed to keep vehicles away from the tracks for mr sexton who was proceeding s he was given a green light in essence to avoid vehicles it was supposed to avoid vehicles encountering the track which would be to his to his right eye he was he was given anything that would caution absolutely not trotter he had no warning devices no if i said he probably could hear the bell there was no evidence whatsoever that he could hear the bell in fact the evidence to the contrary was that every warning device notifying a motorist of a train specifically provide that they read prohibitions to rate turns should be provided with a preemption system as a part of the preemption system so s s by preempting the right to give a southbound motorist like mr sexton green light authorizing directing and regulating him to make a right turn when a train is approaching they created a hazard for him this system is not just a green light it is it's a green light that stays well the the critical issue here your honor was that mr sexton's the preemption system is what guided him and that reaction system went into effect when a train was approaching that presumably he was that startled and then this sixty mph measure train came barreling down so the only warning or indication he would have of the approach of this train was upon making this right turn when he was bound of the train was to his right into his rear the clear same to base its ruling upon the immunity statute provided at seven forty five l c s three days one ten backslash three it based on evidence regardless of the correctness or incorrectness of the law i really can't believe that you're taking that that you're seriously making that argument i think you're trying to corner us them to think that the vast fixed on the case which i also don't think is your serious argument because first of all it wasn't the final time on that but of course it's your argument you can do as you understood drama i think what the point we were trying to make is that this is this very issue of the immunity that would be provided if any under three that's one of four  litigated by motion to dismiss a motion for summary judgment and there were determinations that this was a question affecting to be decided by the jury that was an appropriate ruling based on the evidence that would come out in trial and the evidence that came out in trial was that it was this not tempting to determine factual support for you know that well the jury was being asked to decide questions the fact that i respectfully believe have bearing on the muni meaning whether it was the preemption system that directed him toward the track or well and if they did the the question then becomes then they provide any support for that force rolling in fighting the three that's one of four immunity apply in essence suggest that you could have a blank out sign in absence of a prediction system which him that exists a pretty blank out sign is triggered only in the is guiding and the stick think is supposed to stick traffic twere the tracks however it did not do that for a southbound right turning traffic which had no warning and no notice whatsoever of the approach of the train because it's from its rear were they take the empty cd in get to that stab and what i'm trying to get in my mind is when each yury takes in a case that might be dismissed for tard immunity but then he jury takes it as a step further by saying that the preemption system is there in there at the city didn't operate in properly maintain it and then our jury takes the m t c the which in our case they obviously didn't  notice follow my question is can a judge and i'm having difficulty with this can a judge reduce the toward immunities once it's beyond what  absolute categoric and snyder dozens addressed the but the reason snyder doesn't address that is because the snyder we're focused on the the system that was in existence and recognized that that system was an improper placement which is no different here i case focused on the preemption system that was in existence in operation in the snyder case the designer case they placed the sign on the wrong side street and t of four hundred seventy i feel away from the curb and instead of placing it on the side where the curb presented a danger they did it on the other side which is a supplemental right that they have but the initial requirement they think they passed so they already had the control in place but negligently placed them on the wrong side of the street but driving deadly although snider doesn't discuss this this is all in aware it's probably because the question of initial placement is much weaker in the snyder says they already get that type of control in place al negligently place but you're on a i agree with you the fact that a system was placed to control traffic is what was relevant presumably the argument it was a ridiculous argument to say that there was no initial placement on the right hand side of the street which is in essence what they're saying here they meant that they are so system insider meaning there was a seven minute placement but not the original sign the should have been on the right hand side of the street and the third world at the  u t c decontrol but they should do on the fact of the matter is that the placement here in this case whilst there is nothing in the record that tells us that it was change officer out there to placing some type of a sign but to have a partial system that is meant to restrict traffic trip toward the tracks and i was right turning south more traffic to go toward the tracks of creates the hazard and i would point to the snyder case and the judge case in particular the jets case talked about length of the markings on the roadway broken yellow line correct and they talked about the broken yellow lines being a traffic control device and their resume all solid yellow line arguably under the defense position in this case you could say they never placed to a salad you know a lie and therefore there was no restriction but the the judge cou should have been no procul line of press just the yellow line which would have prohibited passing on either side but the important thing about the judge fish rider is it talks about w place meaning the fact that there was a broken yellow line instruct the traffic or what they could do which was paths in this particular case there was nothing but that's the way the red light there he had to stoplights there did begin but there was a preemption there was a preemption system they gave this man a green light to turn right when the system knew a train was just the green light that well here's maybe we're out repeat maybe it me maybe you were off the mark to if you view when i refer to the system i'm not speaking of traffic control lights red yellow brains i'm speaking of this prevention system that was in place and in operation at the time this man encountered the intersection his question is was that preemption added subsequent to the basic light that's what he's trying to find out the prediction was it later ended which would then fit with schneider and some of these cases it was maybe through is when it was it so you had a basic light there at one time and then some time subsequent ninety four this is stem was put in to system was in place and critical here there was a preemption system in place that gave this gentleman a green light when a train was approaching that created a hazard the standard of care is dictated by the new t c d a common law is that once you take a step to improve the intersection you have to do so either way i notice it here were what what what was what was in place here was not enough there should have been all failure gear if one wants to argue for the city and i have some something to say one can argue that this was not this was a piecemealing judge judge does make statements of that sort but you can't i don't think easily take those statements out of aren't you because of job starts with the fact that you had the wrong don't josh that are apples because they are in conflict with west but you can't start by affording the enough szell factor that what they did place green light and yellow light with no red the city clearly could be held liable for an accident which occurred and intersection because that system is not to the extent that system contributes to a collision the system is no are bound duty bound by stack to follow the blueprints of the manual then it calms ministerial well we're not at all in that that out of me ever all were involved with three or four which is an absolute immunity that is broken up along the discretionary ministerial the fish but respectfully to a setback would mean that it would be acceptable to place a partial system with th absence of a left turn sign in his direction that sound is not triggered by any other component of that system which is different than preemption preemption specifically just because there was a duty doesn't mean there was no immunity it said when they install the system then they have a duty to exercise reasonable care which means compliance with the end u t c didn't like you like that that's what the way in which it would fall outside of what i just described would mean that you have a no right turn prohibition sign acting independently that's right and then that itself does not it and does absolutely nothing if you isolate the system you could place any scenario under tour one of three or four friends of me placing them under that scenario the case but the people especially the city could make the argument in the west case that there was  no i'm sorry in the in the snyder case that there was no initial placement of a sign on the right hand side of the roadway that would be an argument under three or four whether it would be hard to make because the already hume's that the ice requires that they regulate traffic once they improve the intersection it requires that they regulate one and guy traffic once they improve that intersection and to say that this green light  regulate and guide them toward the track when the train was approaching is to ignore the function of a green light it's what they in snyder recognized that it plans to do a direct back and authorized traffic to do certain things that's no different than a green light it's regulating traffic on the part of the city and to regulate traffic troyer a hazard is negligent condo there were there were other tissues there were raised in our brief your honor are you you mentioned because if there was no broken line there would just be a yellow line then the critique would be a failure to stop and so when you have the broken line it is no better then if you had single traffic control device that being the center line on the interstate here we have a traffic light that's already in place we have a preemption sequence that's used to back to control the direction of the movement of east west if it would be known for a failure of the initial installation it is stalls a stop in go system which not actively invites movement without second example of my hypothetical the the installation of the traffic device after the bridge has at that point be analogous to the broken yellow line on the roadway invites movement through through the intersection or collateral to it no because the installation the lake doesn't change what traffic's allowed to do there without a light traffic can turn right with a light traffic and turn right and the obscured from view your example would ask if it's within view that's another story but here we're talking about a hidden as well i don't think it makes a difference the motorist always big having a green light doesn't tell motorists that there's no nothing else going on the motorist always has to be on lookout for what's going on around him or herself here i would also point out that but when its own expert best traffic at the approaching a train so there wasn't anything here in particular areas like the centerline and judge that would have alerted motorists that that any particular regulation had taken place  the centerline on the later record so that i think this is where we get the distinction in judges because it's dealing only with the centerline on the road and not any other system that you could point to in the end the court is careful to make that distinction i think it lea explaining that because there are already a number of traffic control devices in science in that intersection the addition of one more would actually be a decoration of motorists and here is to the signals rather than from its safety and that's a problem that the city encounters on a fairly frequent it's wanted that we had already decided we didn't want to for two reasons the first is a unitary right device versus a system but the second thing it mentions is a discussion that occurs in west about giving city traffic planners the freedom to weigh competing interests when they decide whether or not let me begin by just correcting a statement made by counsel i tried this case and the evidence in the case was absolutely that this preemption system was supposed to keep vehicles away from the truck that he was asked a question preemption systems are warning devices that intersections that interact with railroad crossings answer to clear the corner correct to clear the tracks question did you say to clear the corner answered well yes to clear set the court up to clear the tracks and make it safe the goal of the prevention system is supposed to be to clear the distance from the corners of the track to keep vehicles away correct answer correct and when you allow vehicles to make right turns on grains and red they can go up to the tracks correct answer they can sail back creation system admittedly by the city was supposed to keep mr sexton away now that i running signed that wasn't in place the preemption system their presence in place was designed to keep was in place i'm not saying they should have put the mirrors is likewise similar situation and ramirez was tom hoffman's justice hoffman's decision and it involved the single component that was missing out of the so called system so you know you're navigating through rocky shoals here getting past these appellate court cases that seem to be satisfied that the omission of a single component is sufficient to trigger three o four am near you rather that the station again though does the single component analogy in those cases are independently functioning components this is a preemption system that is and has a specific purpose of keeping vehicles away and it does not do that it directs them toward it's no different then the dotted line it's in snyder it's no different it's guiding them i'm sorry and judge it's instructing travis what to do and then stretching creates the hazard by grabbing him toward an approaching train on the preemption system specifically did that to suggest that this is just a green light is to ignore the fact that a normal brain light does not have an approaching train a preemptive green light hazard is known to be approaching the reason the reason that they require that you prohibit a right turn is because that preemption system recognizes that that's a hazard there would be appreciated by the person being regulated by the green light they are appreciating i hazard so they're saying you actually give them to something to appreciate it because business rain light is creating a hazard that puts them in danger so you have to do something else if you do nothing else you may hear you don't have any life just lying on for years in the cities now you have the same but but the city has not undertaken any action to improve the intersection make an improvement once the decision to perform the work that is made it must be done with reasonable care and in a nine negligent manner to place a regulatory device that is activated when a train is approaching is no different then to regulate traffic to as they did in judge to pass in fact that was cited as a grounds in judge for holding  the municipality live it's no different here and we can't ignore the fact that this preemption system was regulating traffic but the anger by the testimony at trial was that it regulated traffic that it was it was supposed to prevent traffic from a countering the read the testimony is that at the time that they that the same provisions were in place at the time that that they were supposed to prohibit right t or two hundred feet of a highway rail grade crossing measure from the edge of the track to the edge of the roadway where the intersection traffic control signals represented by the approach of a train existing turning movements try the highway robbery a crossing should be prohibited during the signal preemption sequence it's a requirement when you have reaction to prohibited it's begun stop the preemption require that is in movement is what is required it doesn't say you have to do that by a sound you can prohibit it by officers standing there you can prohibit it in any number of ways but you must clear headed they want to make it out to be by create a hazard if you don't prohibit turns toward the track so you can prohibit them in a number of ways assign or otherwise but you have to prohibit them with preemption and this system did not prohibit it create so the heck it created a hazard that it did nothing to