Opinion ID: 1385454
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Inadequate Signing

Text: The failure to provide a sign warning bicyclists that the MUS crossing presented a particular hazard to them is the gravamen of Johnson's claim. The state acknowledged responsibility for both signing and maintaining Phillips Field Road, but it argues that the decision not to provide a sign warning of a particularized hazard falls within the initial design phase of decision-making and is immune unless there is no reasonable basis for such a decision. We conclude, however, that the decision to sign is operational and hence not immune. We reached a similar conclusion in I'Anson: We now turn to the central issue in this review proceeding, namely, whether the placement of traffic signs and highway striping comes within the ambit of the discretionary function or duty exception ... In the trial court, the questions in dispute turned on whether the state properly marked and striped a portion of the Seward Highway north of the Granite Creek Campground access road. In our view, functions of this nature do not involve broad basic policy decisions which come within the `planning' category of decisions which are expressly entrusted to a co-ordinate branch of government. We are further persuaded that resolution of questions such as whether or not the state properly striped or marked a portion of the highway as it relates to the state's duty of care to users of the highway presents facts that courts are equipped to evaluate with traditional judicial fact-finding and decision-making processes. I'Anson, 529 P.2d at 191-92, 193-94. Thus the trial court properly denied the state's motion for immunity. [40]