Opinion ID: 1927599
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Warning devices.

Text: Ordinarily the State has a duty to place proper barriers, railings, guards and danger signals at obstructions and dangerous places on a highway, when necessary for travelers' safety. See Hunt v. State, supra, 252 N.W.2d at 717; Stanley v. State, 197 N.W.2d 599, 605 (Iowa 1972); 40 C.J.S. Highways, § 262, pp. 306-309; cf. Anderson v. Lyon County, 206 N.W.2d 719, 722 (Iowa 1973). Performance of that duty is measured by a reasonableness standard in light of the totality of circumstances. See Ehlinger, supra, 237 N.W.2d at 788; Amelchenko v. Freehold Borough, supra, 42 N.J. at 550-551, 201 A.2d at 730-731. Failure to sign this snowdrift must be judged in context of the total situation then confronting the State through its employees. They could try to open the highways to one-way traffic or pull employees off that duty to place their limited number of warning devices on selected snowdrifts. Again, there is involved the ordering of priorities, and policy decisions in pre-planning for emergencies vis-a-vis the 20-20 vision of hindsight. The fact-findings of trial court set out above are supported by the record, and its conclusion the State was not negligent in failing to sign this snowdrift in the circumstances then prevailing was justified. We affirm the judgment below. AFFIRMED.