Opinion ID: 1935834
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Factual question on negligence.

Text: Appellants argue that they, as state employees, cannot be liable in tort for any accident resulting from the location of a highway warning sign which was placed in conformance with a legislative directive of the state highway commission. They contend, first, that the placement of the sign in compliance with the 750-foot directive adopted by the state highway commission's Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways, pursuant to its statutory authority in 1961, [5] is reasonable as a matter of law. This argument is untenable because it assumes that the highway warning signs were placed in strict conformance with the 750-foot directive of the state highway commission. Although appellants' affidavit asserts that the highway warning signs were placed 794.5 feet from the middle of the intersection where the accident occurred, respondent, by answering affidavit, avers that the warning signs were placed only 708.4 feet from the commencement of the right-angle curve. The 1961 manual, effective at the time of the accident, states in pertinent part: Since warning signs are primarily for the protection of the driver who is unacquainted with the road, it is very important that care be given to their locations. In rural areas warning signs should normally be placed about 750 feet in advance of the hazard or condition warned of. . . The actual advance warning distance will be determined by two factors, the prevailing speed and the condition warned against.... [6] Depending upon what is considered to be the hazard or condition warned of, the beginning or end of the rightangle turn, a substantial question of fact exists as to whether the Manual's 750-foot directive was complied with. Even if, as appellants insist, compliance with a legislative directive of the state highway commission renders the placement of a highway warning sign per se reasonable, [7] here, however, a question of fact remains as to whether the directive was, in fact, complied with. Appellants' second argument is that the placement of a highway warning sign is a legislative or quasi-legislative decision and, similar to Raisanen v. Milwaukee , [8] cannot predicate liability for an accident resulting from its location. In this respect we think the trial court correctly relied upon this court's decision in Firkus v. Rombalski [9] in its conclusion that once appellants made the legislative or quasi-legislative decision to place the highway warning sign, they had a duty to place it and maintain it without negligence. In Firkus this court affirmed a trial court's finding that the town of Hull, in Portage county, was negligent as a matter of law in failing to replace and maintain a highway arterial stop sign, with knowledge of its disappearance, for over nineteen days. Acknowledging that the town had no duty to put up the stop sign initially, this court held its failure to properly maintain the sign once it was erected, thereby causing an accident, was actionable negligence. In Raisanen it was held, however, that traffic signals which were functioning in accord with a predetermined plan and not in violation of any highway commission rules, did not give rise to a cause of action: This appeal concerns primarily the city's decision in programming its traffic control signals which decision conformed in all respects to the statutes and the rules of the highway commission, and which decision involved the choice of lawfully authorized alternatives. We fully concur with the rationale expressed by the New York court of appeals in Weiss v. Fote [(1960), 7 N. Y. 2d 579, 200 N. Y. Supp. 2d 409, 167 N. E. 2d 63], that lawfully authorized programming of signal lights by a city should not give rise to tort liability by a jury second-guessing the reasonableness and safety of the plan. Therefore, we hold the complaint fails to state a cause of action in negligence. [10] The Raisanen holding was recently reaffirmed by this court in Dusek v. Pierce County, [11] a suit against the municipality for its failure to erect a highway warning sign alerting drivers of a hazardous intersection. Affirming the trial court's granting of summary judgment against the plaintiff, this court held: It is apparent from a review of these cases that whether or not to place a stop sign, a warning sign, or a yield sign at the approach to a county trunk highway is a legislative decision that must be undertaken by the county board and not by the courts. At the most, what the plaintiff spells out herein is the county's failure to exercise the legislative function. Although there is a duty, as spelled out in Firkus, to maintain signs once they are placed, there is no duty upon the legislative body of a government to place them at a highway intersection in the first place. [12] Although the decision as to whether or not to locate a traffic sign is not actionable, a question of fact exists as to whether the instant highway warning signs were, in fact, located pursuant to the highway commission's directives. If they were, it is clear that Raisanen controls and the plaintiff should not be permitted to second guess the plan's safety. If it turns out, however, that the actual sign placement did not conform with the specifications outlined in the 1961 manual, Raisanen offers appellants no protection. Whether or not the signs were placed in conformance with the highway commission's specifications is a question of fact. Accordingly, the trial court was correct in denying appellants' motion for summary judgment.