GA Code § 32-6-50 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 32 - Highways, Bridges, and Ferries|Chapter 6 - Regulation of Maintenance and Use of Public Roads Generally|Article 3 - Control of Signs and Signals|Part 1 - Public Roads Generally|§ 32-6-50. Uniform Regulations Governing Erection and Maintenance of Traffic-Control Devices; Placement, Removal, Defacement, Damaging, or Sale of Devices

  The department shall promulgate uniform regulations governing the erection and maintenance on the public roads of Georgia of signs, signals, markings, or other traffic-control devices, such uniform regulations to supplement and be consistent with the laws of this state. Insofar as practical, with due regard to the needs of the public roads of Georgia, such uniform regulations shall conform to the recommended regulations as approved by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.   In conformity with its uniform regulations, the department shall place and maintain, or cause to be placed and maintained, such traffic-control devices upon the public roads of the state highway system as it shall deem necessary to regulate, warn, or guide traffic, except that the department shall place and maintain a sign for each railroad crossing at grade on the state highway system, warning motorists of such crossing, provided that each railroad company shall also erect and maintain a railroad crossbuck sign on its right of way at every such crossing. The department may remove or direct removal of all traffic-control devices and signs which are erected on the state highway system by any governing authority without the permission of the department.   In conformity with the uniform regulations of the department:   Counties and municipalities shall place and maintain upon the public roads of their respective public road systems such traffic-control devices as are necessary to regulate, warn, or guide traffic except that counties and municipalities also shall erect and maintain a sign for each railroad crossing at grade on their respective county road or municipal street systems, warning motorists of such crossing. Furthermore, each railroad company shall erect and maintain a railroad crossbuck sign on its right of way at all such crossings; and   Counties, on their respective road systems, shall place and maintain on each county road which is authorized as a designated local truck route, pursuant to official resolution of the county, at each intersection of such road with a state highway signs identifying such county road as a designated local truck route and giving notice of the maximum weight limits for such designated local truck route in accordance with subsection (f) of Code Section 32-6-26.     It shall be unlawful for any person to remove, deface, or damage in any way any official traffic-control device lawfully erected or maintained pursuant to this Code section or any other law.   No person, firm, corporation, or other entity shall offer for sale any sign, signal, marking, or other device intended to regulate, warn, or guide traffic upon the public roads of this state, unless it conforms with the uniform regulations promulgated under subsection (a) of this Code section. Any person, firm, corporation, or other entity who sells any sign, signal, marking, or other device intended to regulate, warn, or guide traffic upon the public roads of this state in violation of this Code section shall make restitution to the purchaser in an amount equal to the entire sum, plus interest, originally paid for the sign, signal, marking, or other device. Any person, firm, corporation, or other entity who knowingly sells any sign, signal, marking, or other device intended to regulate, warn, or guide traffic upon the public roads of this state in violation of subsection (a) of this Code section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.    (Ga. L. 1931, p. 221, § 3; Code 1933, § 95-2003; Ga. L. 1953, Nov.-Dec. Sess., p. 556, §§ 31-33, 39; Ga. L. 1968, p. 1427, § 1; Code 1933, § 95A-901, enacted by Ga. L. 1973, p. 947, § 1; Ga. L. 1981, p. 1826, § 1; Ga. L. 1998, p. 1206, § 5; Ga. L. 2012, p. 1343, § 8/HB 817.)   Cross references.   - Required observance of traffic signs, signals, and markings, § 40-6-20 et seq.    Erection and maintenance of crossbuck signs at highway grade crossings generally, § 46-8-194 et seq.   JUDICIAL DECISIONS   Department's duty to design, manage, and improve state highway system.    - When the charge in question does in fact state that the Department of Transportation (DOT) has "general responsibility to design, manage and improve the state highway system," it seems to capture the essence of the sections the defendant relies upon, which are in fact very broad, general descriptions of the duties of the DOT. The additional material used by the court is drawn from the more specific statutory description of the respective duties of the DOT and municipalities. Thus, O.C.G.A. § 32-2-2 does indeed mention the general duty of the DOT to "designate, improve, manage, control, construct, and maintain." Banks v. City of Brunswick, 529 F. Supp. 695 (S.D. Ga. 1981), aff'd, 667 F.2d 97 (11th Cir. 1982).    Trial court erred by denying the railroad's motion for summary judgment on the plaintiffs' claims based on inadequate signage at the railroad crossing and the decision to reopen the roadway because it was the Georgia Department of Transportation's responsibility to designate the location for, and the manner of placement of, the traffic control devices and signage. DOT v. Delor, 351 Ga. App. 414, 830 S.E.2d 519 (2019), cert. denied, No. S20C0086, 2020 Ga. LEXIS 260 (Ga. 2020).   Proof of department liability insufficient.    - Since the trial court did not have before the court evidence of proof that Department of Transportation regulations designated specific acts or omissions to be negligence per se, that the collision forming the basis of the suit was the harm intended to guard against, and that the plaintiffs fell within the class of persons to be protected by the regulations, the court did not err in denying the plaintiffs' motion for directed verdict. Donaldson v. DOT, 236 Ga. App. 411, 511 S.E.2d 210 (1999).   Department is responsible for traffic-control devices.    - Once a general contractor completes the work on a public road called for under a contract with the Department of Transportation (DOT), the DOT is responsible for traffic-control devices on the road. Baker v. Reynolds Trucking Co., 181 Ga. App. 242, 351 S.E.2d 657 (1986).    When the trial court correctly interpreted contract provisions as only requiring the defendant to install traffic control devices, or to take preventative or corrective action when traffic related problems were caused from preexisting hazards or by the defendant's construction activities, the defendant did not undertake to perform the duties under O.C.G.A. § 32-4-41(1) and subsection (c) of O.C.G.A. § 32-6-50. Adams v. APAC-Georgia, Inc., 236 Ga. App. 215, 511 S.E.2d 581 (1999).    Nothing in O.C.G.A. § 32-6-50 or O.C.G.A. § 32-6-51 prohibits the Georgia Department of Transportation (DOT) from delegating responsibility to erect and maintain traffic control signs to a private contractor through a construction contract; § 32-6-50 does not saddle DOT with ultimate responsibility for installing and maintaining traffic control devices on all county and municipal road systems. Comanche Constr., Inc. v. DOT, 272 Ga. App. 766, 613 S.E.2d 158 (2005).    Contractors were not liable for negligently controlling traffic as the Georgia Department of Transportation (DOT) was required to place and maintain, or cause to be placed and maintained, traffic control devices and the DOT was responsible for approving all traffic control plans before implementation by a contractor; the injured party failed to show that the contractor failed to implement the traffic control devices pursuant to the DOT's directives, even though the injured party's accident reconstruction expert and drivers involved in the accident found the traffic control measures inadequate or improper. Fraker v. C.W. Matthews Contr. Co., 272 Ga. App. 807, 614 S.E.2d 94 (2005), aff'd, No. 06-11805, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 28793 (11th Cir. 2007).   State DOT not liable for failing to erect road closure signs on county road.    - Because an accident occurred on a county-owned road and did not occur on a part of the state highway system upon which the DOT owed a duty to motorists, and the couple's expert's affidavit could not establish a legal duty to erect signs or to take other steps to inform drivers of the closure of the county-owned road, summary judgment for the DOT was proper. Diamond v. DOT, 326 Ga. App. 189, 756 S.E.2d 277 (2014).   Common law action against railroad precluded.    - Georgia Code of Public Transportation, O.C.G.A. § 32-1-1 et seq., precluded a common-law cause of action against a railroad for the failure to install adequate protective devices at a grade crossing on a public road since the railroad had not been requested to do so by the appropriate governmental entity. Southern Ry. v. Georgia Kraft Co., 188 Ga. App. 623, 373 S.E.2d 774 (1988).    Because the Georgia Code of Public Transportation, O.C.G.A. § 32-1-1 et seq., abrogated any common law duty on the part of defendant railroad to install adequate signal equipment at a railroad crossing where the driver's car was struck by a train, the common law negligence claim asserted by plaintiffs, the driver's survivors, was dismissed for failure to state a claim; under O.C.G.A. § 32-6-51, the railroad company would have acted in violation of Georgia law if the company erected traffic signals on the public road unless the company was required or authorized to do so by O.C.G.A. §§ 32-6-50 and32-6-51(d), or some "other law," and O.C.G.A. § 32-6-200 delegated responsibility for the installation of protective devices on public roads to the appropriate governmental entity. Bentley v. CSX Transp., Inc., 437 F. Supp. 2d 1327 (N.D. Ga. 2006).   Common law duty to install warnings at grade crossings abrogated.    - O.C.G.A. §§ 32-6-50 and32-6-51 work in conjunction to abrogate a railroad's common law duty to install devices to warn of approaching trains at grade crossings. CSX Transp., Inc. v. Trism Specialized Carriers, Inc., 182 F.3d 788 (11th Cir. 1999).   Even though the defendant railroad determined that a crossing might need additional warning signals, when the Department of Transportation inspected the crossing and determined that active warning signals were not needed, the railroad could not be held liable for not installing signals. Crockett v. Norfolk S. Ry., 95 F. Supp. 2d 1353 (N.D. Ga. 2000), aff'd, 239 F.3d 370, (11th Cir. 2000).   No penalty for non-compliance.    - Non-compliance with O.C.G.A. § 32-6-50 by the Department of Transportation (DOT) does not exact a penalty and produces no injury to individual rights. Donaldson v. DOT, 236 Ga. App. 411, 511 S.E.2d 210 (1999).   Responsibility of private owner.    - Trial court correctly concluded that an apartment complex owner had no responsibility for installing or maintaining traffic signal device as that duty was officially vested in the city by virtue of subsection (c) of O.C.G.A. § 32-6-50. Zumbado v. Lincoln Property Co., 209 Ga. App. 163, 433 S.E.2d 301 (1993).   County and municipal obligation.    - When an injured party sued the Georgia Department of Transportation (DOT) for injuries received in a single-car accident on a county road, the party could not maintain a negligent maintenance claim against DOT for not maintaining adequate warning devices on the road because the road on which the accident occurred was not part of the state highway system, nor did the road lead to a state park, so, under O.C.G.A. § 32-6-50(c)(1), the county was obligated to maintain such devices. Ogles v. E.A. Mann & Co., 277 Ga. App. 22, 625 S.E.2d 425 (2005).   Jury instructions.   - In a wrongful death action, the district court did not err by instructing the jury concerning the railroad's duty to maintain traffic control devices because taking all of the instructions together, the jury was properly informed that the railroad could not be held liable for the decision about which warning device to put in place or continue in place, but the railroad could be held liable for any failure to repair an existing warning light. Wright v. CSX Transp., Inc., 375 F.3d 1252 (11th Cir. 2004).    Cited in Peluso v. Central of Ga. R.R., 165 Ga. App. 215, 299 S.E.2d 51 (1983); DOT v. Brown, 218 Ga. App. 178, 460 S.E.2d 812 (1995); DOT v. Brown, 267 Ga. 6, 471 S.E.2d 849 (1996); Ballenger Paving Co. v. Gaines, 231 Ga. App. 565, 499 S.E.2d 722 (1998); CSX Transp., Inc. v. Trism Specialized Carriers, Inc., 9 F. Supp. 2d 1374 (N.D. Ga. 1998); DOT v. Cushway, 240 Ga. App. 464, 523 S.E.2d 340 (1999); Hubbard v. DOT, 256 Ga. App. 342, 568 S.E.2d 559 (2002); CSX Transp., Inc. v. Deen, 269 Ga. App. 641, 605 S.E.2d 50 (2004); Murray v. Ga. DOT, 284 Ga. App. 263, 644 S.E.2d 290 (2007).   OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL   Department of Transportation's authority over public highways.   - Authority to control, manage, and close public highways is vested in the Department of Transportation, not the Department of Public Safety. 1973 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 73-184.   Municipal control of traffic.   - Traffic on city streets which is not part of the State Highway System is under municipal control. 1977 Op. Att'y Gen. No. U77-45.    Cameras used for enforcement of traffic control devices  may be erected by counties at the intersection of roads within the state highway system with the approval of the Department of Transportation. 2000 Op. Att'y Gen. No. U2000-12.   RESEARCH REFERENCES   ALR.    - Right of private citizen to complain of rerouting of highway or removal or change of route or directional signs, 97 A.L.R. 192.   Liability, in motor vehicle-related cases, of governmental entity for injury or death resulting from design, construction, or failure to warn of narrow bridge, 2 A.L.R.4th 635.   Highways: Governmental duty to provide curve warnings or markings, 57 A.L.R.4th 342.   Governmental liability for failure to post highway deer crossing warning signs, 59 A.L.R.4th 1217.